■ ' • 1 ■» V^ 



~ ir\ 







.0^ 



I 8 






-^ .'\ 






'JS^ c 



* c-^T. 



^<^. 






o 















•^ 



.n"^^ ' 






-.^ 



K 









^-^ 



<^^ 



0^ s/ 



' , X -* \' 



-k A "o ''■' ' " . *> 



^ ^ ^o. 



.0^ 



•>'^^^ 






4 ^ * 



\' 



Oo 






>^ ^^. 






V 



*^ ^f^M 



"^ c,> 






*^ 



■^ 



-x^^ ^^. 










O^ ^7 .. s^ .^^ 



^^ 






^ '\ 



v^ > 










A'' 







V- 






.y" '-^ ^ 










o5 -^c^ 



"^, 






•s 



xO^^. 























-i 









V 



^^V<c. 







C 

■a 






Y « 



■0 

c, X' - C^ * aV 

a- 






^ -Ok A 





, X ' A- 









5r ^r" s^^ \0' 








-■^ 



IB "^ « X '^ 

- ^- o'^ ^ 



REMARKS 



UPON THE 



SYSTEMATICAL CLASSIFICATION 



O*" 



MANUSCRIPTS 



ADOPTED BY 

GRIESBACH 



IN HIS 

EDITION OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 



V, 



BY 

RICHARD LAURENCE, LL. D. 



RECTOR OF MERSHAM, AND OF STONE, IN THE COUNTY 

OF KENT. 



OXFORD, 

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE AUTHOR : 

^ Sold by J. Parker; and by Messrs. Rivijtgton, London. 

1814. 



• ^"^ ''^ 



> 



3^ 

1) 



TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 

SIR WILLIAM SCOTT, M. P. 

JUDGE OF THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY, &c. 
THE AUTHOR OF THESE REMARKS 

RESPECTFULLY DEDICATES THEM : 
NOT SOLELY, IN DECLARATION OF PRIVATE GRATITUDE; 

TO AN EXALTED INDIVIDUAL, 

WHO CONDESCENDS TO HONOUR HIM WITH A NOTICE, 

WHICH HE PRESUMES NOT INDEED TO DESERVE, 

BUT WHICH HE HOPES NEVER TO DISCREDIT, 

AND WHO HAS CONFERRED UPON HIM OBLIGATIONS, 

TOO GREAT TO BE REQUITED, 

AND TOO FLATTERING TO BE FORGOTTEN ; 

BUT ALSO, 
IN TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC DEFERENCE, 

TO AN ILLUSTRIOUS STATESjVIAN AND JUDGE, 

EMINENTLY DISTINGUISHED BY SOLIDITY OF ARGUMENT 

IN THE SENATE, 
BY ACCURACY OF DECISION IN THE COURT, 

AND 
BY ELEGANCE AS WELL AS PERSPICUITY OF EXPRESSION 

IN both; 

AND, EVEN STILL MORE APPROPRIATELY, 

TO AN ACCOMPLISHED SCHOLAR 

OF CLASSICAL TASTE, AND DISCRIMINATION, 

NOT LESS CONSPICUOUS 

f OR THB POSSESSION, THAN CANDID IN THE DISPLAY 

OF CRITICAL TALENTS. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAP. I. 

GriesbacHs Edition of the New Testament-— 
Effects produced by it. p. 1 . 

CHAP. II. 

Origin of GrieshacHs Theory, JBengel, Semler, 
Number of Classes, Remarks upon their Li- 
mitation to three. Inadequacy of the Result, 

p. 8. 

CHAP. III. 

GriesbacJis Mode of Classification, No standard 
Text, Principle of Classification fallacious^ 
Inaccuracy of his Calculations, Corrected 
Statement, p. 27 o 

CHAP. IV. 

More correct Mode of ascertaining the Class of 
a Manuscript, Comparison of A with Origen^ 
With G or the Western Text. Affinity of A 
to the Byzantine greater than to the Western^ 
or the Alexandrine. p. 42^ 



vi 



CHAP. V. 

Comparison of the Colbert Manuscript with A. 
Mistakes of Griesbach, Controverted Reading 
of\ Tim. iii. l6. Existence of the Alexandrine 
Text problematical. Conclusion, .^ p. 64* 

APPENDIX. 

Readings of Origen alone. Of A with Origen, 
A C with Origen, Of A alone. Readings of 
G alone. Of A with G, Of A alone. Re- 
marks upon the joint Readings of A C and 
Oiigen, Upon the general Coincidences of 
Origen with the Western Text, and with 
other Alexandrine Writers, Affinity to the 
Western Text predominant, p. 95. 



Sold ly J. Parker^ Oxford ; and hy Messrs. Rivington^ 
St, PauVs Church'Yardy London, 

I. Critical Reflections upon some important Misrepresen- 
tations contained in the Unitarian Version of the New 
Testament. By Richard Laurence, LL. D. Price 5s. 

II. The metaphorical Character of the Apostolical Style, 
and the predominant Opinion of the Apostolical ^ra, as 
elucidating the Doctrine of Atonement, considered : a 
Sermon, preached at the Visitation of his Grace the 
Archbishop of Canterbuiy. By the same. Price Is. 6d. 

III. A Dissertation on the Logos of St. John, comprehend- 
ing the substance of Sermons preached before the Univer- 
sity of Oxford. By the same. Price 3s. 

IV. On Singularity and Excess in Philological Literature : 
a Sermon preached before the University of Oxford. By 
the same. Price Is. fid. 

ALSO, 

Critical Remarks on detached Passages of the Nevr Testa- 
ment, particularly the Revelation of St. John. By the 
late French Laurence, LL.D. M. P. &c. Price 63. 



CHAP. I. 

GrieshacHs Edition of the New Testament-^ 
Effects produced by it, 

iM O question, it is presumed, relative to the cri- 
ticism of the Greek Text in the New Testament, 
the original language of that inspired volume, 
upon which our faith is founded, can be consi- 
dered by Christians of any denomination as 
wholly unimportant. The doctrine indeed of 
its miraculous identity seems now completely 
exploded : for to suppose that a superintending 
Providence presided over the pen of every tran- 
scriber from the first to the fifteenth century, 
preventing the occurrence of those little lapses 
to which human transcripts are liable, is surely 
to suppose the existenbe of a miracle, not only 
against direct proof, but without an adequate 
necessity. 

Of all the critical editions of the Greek Text, 
the most celebrated is that of Griesbach. The 
peculiar feature of his system, it is well known, 
consists in the arrangement of manuscripts un- 

B 



der certain heads or classes. The accuracy of 
this arrangement it is the object of the follow- 
ing pages to examine. 

But before I enter upon the investigation, I 
must be permitted to make a few preliminary 
observations upon the effects which have been 
produced by his repeated labours in critical 
correction. 

As it is an incontrovertible truth, that opi- 
nion must be regulated by the text, and not 
the text by opinion ; when it was known that an 
author, so highly respected as Griesbach, was 
preparing a second edition of his New Testa- 
ment, expectation was upon the tiptoe among 
those, who, conscious that the received text will 
not '^ without a little straining" satisfactorily 
entwine with their favourite tenets, are always 
anxiously anticipating the probable chances of 
relief, attainable by an unreserved use of the 
critical pruning knife. The Unitarians not only 
applauded and patronised his undertaking, but 
exerted every means in their power to carry the 
work with credit through the press, and to give 
it publicity in this country. But what has been 



the result ? As far as relates to doctrinal points, 
the great object of their contemplation, their 
hopes have been completely frustrated ; for no- 
thing more was omitted in the second, than 
what had been exposed as illegitimate in the 
first, edition. If it be asked, what were the 
passages rejected, and what was the impression 
made upon the mind of him who rejected them; 
a better answer cannot be given than in the 
words of Griesbach himself, which occur in his 
preface to the Apostolical Writings, published 
in the year 177^» " Interim uni tamen dogmati 
eique palmario, doctrinae scilicet de vera Jesu 
Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum 
esse videri posset nonnullis, qui non solum 
" locum istum celebratissimum 1 Joh. v. 7» e 
" textu ejectum, verum etiam lectionem vulga- 
'^ rem loci 1 Tim. iii. l6. (ut et Act. xx. 28.) 
" dubitationi subjectam et lectorum arbitrio per- 
" missam, invenient. Quare ut iniquas suspi- 
^' ciones omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, et 
^^ hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam prse- 
*^ ripiam, primum publice profiteor atque Deum 
" testor, neutiquam me de veritate istius dog- 

B 2 



a 



a 



ce 



a 



ce 



cc 



a 



ce 



'' matis dubitare. Atque sunt profecto t am mu/ia 
" et luculenta argumenta et ScripturcB loca, qui- 
bus vera Deitas Christo vindicatur, ut ego 
quidem intelligere vix possem, quomodo^ con- 
*^ cessa Scripturse sacrse divina auctoritate, et 
admissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma 
hoc in dubium a quoquam vocari possit. In 
primis locus ille Job. i. 1^, 2, 3. tarn perspicuns 
" est atque ormiihus exceptionibus major, ut ne- 
" que interpretum neque criticorum audacibus co- 
*^ natihus unquam everti atque veritatis defen- 
*^ soribus eripi possit." 

From the preceding quotation therefore it ap- 
pears, that Griesbach felt it necessary to apolo- 
gize in his first edition for only three peculiar 
readings as affecting opinion, out of the im- 
mense number which he had collected ; viz. the 
omission of 1 John v. 7« and the substitution of 
h for ^fo? in 1 Tim. iii. l6. as well as of nu^tou 
for S^fou in Acts xx. 28 ; readings, he might have 
added, which had been again and again contro- 
verted before he himself was born. And what 
did he effect in his second edition ? Nothing 
more than subsequently to extirpate that which 



he had previously marked for extirpation. Whe- 
ther indeed the decision of his judgment in the 
three instances alluded to be correct or not, is 
a question which I do not undertake to investi- 
gate. 

It seems then than no new weapon of Unita- 
rian warfare has been obtained from the critical 
armoury of Griesbach, which once glittered in 
the latitudinarian eye with so much promise ; 
but that the integrity of the Trinitarian text, 
in every undisputed passage of Scripture, re- 
mains precisely in its former state unattacked, 
and perhaps we must now presume unattack- 
able. The ancient weapons however of the 
party, it may be remarked, have at least re- 
ceived a sharper edge : but those who may thus 
boast should recollect, that, in defence of the 
same hostile ground, which was originally as- 
sumed by Clark, Whiston, Wetstein, and others, 
they have merely acquired the additional sup- 
port of another individual : of one whom they 
hold in equal admiration and contempt ; ad- 
miration for his critical, and contempt for his 
theological, talents. 

b3 



6 



All men indisputably are not critics : but all 
men, who feel a real attachment to the rehgion 
which they profess, are alike interested in the 
result of critical investigation, when applied to 
an object so important as the adjustment of 
scriptural readings. It is natural therefore to 
expect, that every novel mode of ascertaining 
the validity of a reading will be at first received 
with caution, and long watched with jealousy. 
And notwithstanding the ability which has been 
displayed in the support of Griesbach's theory, 
notwithstanding the high tone which it has as- 
. sumed in the literary world, I must confess, 
that it is far from producing in my own mind 
complete conviction. I shall not however, I 
hope, be misapprehended, as arguing upon ex- 
clusive principles against the general doctrine of 
a classification of manuscripts, if indeed an ac- 
curate classification be attainable; but shall only 
be understood as urging the propriety of cir- 
cumspection upon the points of the practical 
conception and application of Griesbach's par- 
ticular hypothesis. It is indeed true, that this 
even in his patient hands has produced effects 



only to the trifling extent alluded to^: but as 
it is extremely liable to be misconceived as well 
as misapplied ; is so intricate in its construc- 
tion ; is so difficult to be detailed with precision, 
or even to be made out in its subordinate ar- 
rangements ; and is so readily convertible to 
party purposes ; surely we should again and 
again contemplate it, and that in every possible 
point of view, before we consent to admit the 
conclusions which have been deduced from it 
into general currency. 

* Giiesbach himseliP remarks in tlie Prolegomena to the 
first Tolunie of his last edition : '^ Nulla emendatio a recen- 
'^ tioribus editoribus tentata uUam Scripturae sacrae doctri- 
" nam immutat aut evertit ; paucae sensura sententiarum af- 
" ficimit." P. xxxvii. 



B 4 



8 



CHAP. II. 

Origin of GrieshacKs Theory, BengeL Semlerj^ 
Number of Classes, Remarks upon their Li- 
mitat'ion to three. Inadequacy of the Result, 

THE critical talents of Griesbach have long 
ranked high in the estimation of the public ; 
and an implicit confidence seems to be placed 
in the rectitude of his judgment and in the ac- 
curacy of his statements. If I do not however 
mistake the character of the man from his writ- 
ings, he is himself the last to claim infallibility 
in the one case, or impeccability in the other. 
He certainly may be, and I believe he is^ what 
Dr. Marsh denominates him, " the most con- 
" summate critic that ever undertook an edition 
" of the New Testament^." But his perfection 
will still only be relative, upon a comparison 
with the merits of his predecessors in the same 
arduous department. Complete exemption from 
error eitlier in hypothesis or in collation is 

^ Michaelis's Introd. vol. ii. p. 629. 



9 



surely what the vainest of verbal critics will 
scarcely venture to arrogate. Wetstein'^ accused 
Bengel of permitting his theological prejudices 
to influence his criticism^ while Wetstein him- 

*^ As the circumstance itself is curious, and not perhaps 
generally known^ I shall subjoin it in the language of its 
author. In a criticism upon Heb. ii. 9. Bengel had remarked, 
"^ Haec expositio non potuit placere iis^ quos etiam firmiora 
'' pro Deitate Jesu Christi argumenta urunt." Wetstein, 
animadverting on this passage, among other severe cen- 
sures has the following : '* Quaenam fuit ratio ex omni hu- 
'' mano generi eos solos eligendi, quos etiam clariora de Dei- 
" tate Christi argumenta urunt, nisi ut animum malum pro- 
'' deres, et immerenti invidiam conjiares ? — Hie nigrae succus 
" loliginis, haec est aerugo mera." And in the subsequent 
paragraph retorts upon Bengel in this singular and unex- 
pected manner : " Bengelius nomen Jesu, si recte calculum 
" posui, minimum vicies et quater contra plerosque codices 
" scriptos et contra plerasque editiones receptas, vel ex con- 
*' textu sacro ejecit, vel in margine toUendum esse pronun- 
" tiavit. Quid erat, quaeso, causae, cur nomen Jesu virum 
"" doctum atque jiium tantopere ofiFenderet r Si quis illi sua 
" verba hie regereret : Hoc non potuit placere lis, quos etiam 
** Jirmiora pro Deitate Jesu Christi argumenta urunt ; nonne 
'' majori specie id faceret? Absit autftn a me, ut convicium 
" convicio rependam. Alia, si quid video, ejus erroris fuit 
'' occasio. Vivit Bengelius inter eos, qui, quoties nomen' 
*' Jesu vel proferunt vel proferri audiunt, caput aperire so- 



(C 



<e 



10 



self was more perhaps than suspected of being 
biassed in a similar manner by theological pre- 
judices of a very different tendency : but I do 
not think that this charge can be justly pre- 

« 

ferred against Griesbach. 

Although it be true, as the Authors of the 
late Unitarian Version justly remark, that " of 
" the hundred and fifty thousand various read- 
" ings which have been discovered by the saga- 
city and zeal of collators, not one tenth, nor 
one hundredth part" (and they might have 
conceded much more) " make any perceptible, 

*' lent } hinc fit, ut concionatores earn vocem raro pronun- 
" tient, lie aut frequent! repetitione aliquid emphasi detra- 
" hatur, aut caput alternis aperiendo, et operiendo vel mo- 
'' lestia auditoribus creetur, vel attentio minuatur. Huic 
"' mori a teneris adsuetus cum videret, gesticulationem eccle- 
'^ siasticam et contextual sacrum non con venire, imprudens 
"^ contextum ex gestibus correxit, cum juxta regulas sanioris 
*' criticae gestus potius ad voces contextus sacri accommodare 
*' debuisset*." What a whimsical display has Wetstein here 
exhibited of the odium theologicum, and the nasus aduncus 
of critical contempt ! 

* Prolegomena, Ed. Semleri, p. 415. Upon this conceit of Wetstein 
Semler remarks: *' Ejus rei non arbitror esse banc, quam prodit Wet- 
** stenius causam ; Bengelius, ut alii, ducitur suo quodam sensu cri- 
•« tico." Ibid. 



11 

*^ at least any material variation in the sense ^:" 
and although, with the exceptions before stated, 
these various readings are wholly unimportant 
in a theological point of view ; yet the case is 
otherwise in a critical. The editor of an amend- 
ed text will not be biassed by the theological 
importance, but solely by the critical correctness, 
of a reading. And to the attainment of this 
object it is possible that a systematical classifi- 
cation of manuscripts may greatly conduce. 

It is admitted that the first writer, who points* 
ed out the utility of such a classification, was 
Bengel. In the Apparatus Criticus annexed to 
his edition of the New Testament he thus ex- 
presses himself upon the subject : " Si quis 
" omnem codicum varietatem probe secum re- 
^^ putaverit, librarios Graecos in quasdam quasi 
nationes s'lve familias discessionem ante et- 
iam fuisse, quam versiones, de quarum anti- 
quitate mox agemus, extitissent, casque dif- 
^' ferentias samel ortas, alia super alia lectionum 
*^ divortia, variis ex causis, non uno tempore, 
" cumulaverunt. Rursum ex codicibus ita di- 

c Preface, p. 27. 



ii 



(C 



(C 



12 



" versis alii codices studio librariorum, quasi 
^^ eclectico, sunt propagati ; sic tamen ut qu(L- 
" I'lbet nat'io sive fainilia certas originis suae no- 
" tas retineret. Tanta tamque confusa moles 
" quomodo discriminabitur? Id fiet si prius ver- 
" sionum ac patrum superadditus erit cumulus ^." 
Again ; " Turn videlicet nationes codicum quas 
" §.31. discrevimus^ Aleocandriam, Ant'iochiam^ 
'^ Cojistantinopolm, Hierosolymam, Romam, id 
'^ est totum orbem Christianum complexae po- 
" tiore certe sui parte, in unum conveniunt, co- 
" piasque suas invicto robore conjungunt. Hoc 
^^ tutiss'imum omnis decisionis compendium ; hoc 
^^ certissimum sanse lectionis criterium. Unius 
generis codices, quamlibet multi, saepe aber- 
rant. Non qualiscunque species codicum an- 
'^ tiquorum, bonorum, multorum, in censum ve- 
^^ nit; valet vero diversitas testium, qui a fonte, 
a prima manu, quam proxime absunt, et inter 
se quam longissime distant, adeoque suo con- 
sensu genuinam lectionem ostendunt, suoque 
^^ comitatu semper et antiquitatem et bonitatem, 
et, exceptis singularibus quibusdam causis, 

d Pars I. §.3I. 






(( 



(C 



13 



" pluralitatem complectuntur, vel ubi pluralitas 
" deficit, defectum supplent, ipsisque codicibus 
" recentioribus et inconstantioribus robur ad- 
" dunt. Quo pacto plerisque in locis decisio 
" earn firmitudinem nanciscitur, quae fit pro na- 
" tura rei, instar demonstrationis ^." 

That Bengel indeed was the original projector 
of the system alluded to, Griesbach himself was 
too candid either to deny or to conceal. In a 
publication previous to his last edition of the 
New Testament, and professedly written to ex- 
plain the principles of his criticism, he thus ex- 
presses himself; " Palmam sine dubio omnibus 
" quos modo laudavi, praeripuit Joannes Albertus 
" Bengelius, qui in Apparatu suo Critico prae- 
judicatis opinionibus permultis mascule se op- 
posuit, codicum, eorum praesertim, qui Epi- 
^^ stolas Paulinas continent c-v^vyia.; ac familias 
diligenter observavit, AfricarKB recensionis ab 
Asiatica discrimen primus fere indigitavit, et 
*^ alia passim attigit, quae si colligantur in unum, 
" et apte inter se jungantur, quaedam quasi ru- 
^ dimenta historiae textus sacri continent. Atta- 

« Ibid. §.32. obs.31. i 



(f 



u 









(e 



14 



'^ men egregie affectum opus neutiquam perfecit 
vir sagacissimus, sed perfecisset forsitan si de- 
cem aut quindecim annos Wetstenii volumina 
diligenti manu versare potuisset, et novis his 
subsidiis adjutus, praeconceptas opiniones non- 
" nullas exuisset, recensiones diversas, quae co- 
" dices Novi Testamenti omnes in classes ali- 
quot sejungunt, accuratius observasset^ ac in 
primis ingens discrimen, quod inter Alexan- 
" drinam recensionem et Occidentalem inter- 
" cedit^ perspexisset. Harum enim recensionum 
" omnium antiquissimarum et notatu dignissi- 
" marum, distinctionem, cum cseteris criticis, 
" negligens Bengelius^ in ipso Historiae limine || 
" ofFendit, et quo minus pedem tuto promovere 
" posset, saepenumero impeditus fuit V 

But Bengel was not the only predecessor of 
Griesbach in the same path. The immediate 
author of apparently the precise plan adopted 
by him was Semler^ one from whose public in- 
structions he professes to have derived much 
useful information, and whose writings he held 
in the highest esteem ; perhaps the more so, 

^ Carae in Epist. Paulinas, &c. A.D. 1777. sect. 1. §. 9. 



15 



because that adventurous critic was certainly 
never suspected of treading in the beaten track 
of preconceived opinion. How highly indeed 
he esteemed the labours of Semler will appear 
from the following account which he gives of 
them : " Longe quam alii luculentius recensio- 
" num discrimina demonstravit, vanas plero- 
" rumque de codicibus Grseco-Latinis, et aliis 
" rebus ad crisin sacram pertinentibus, persua- 
" siones impugnavit^ versionis Latinae vetustioris 
" indolem curiose pervestigavit, aliaque innu- 
^' mera fere incredibili diligentia coacervavit, 
quae ad illustrandam textus Graeci historiam 
apprime faciunts." And in the preface to 
his last edition of the Testament he thus dis- 
tinctly points to the authors of his theory : 
'^ Ego vero doctis nonnullis Bengelii observa- 
" tionibus admonitus eam viam, quam Semlerus 
" ingredi coeperat, quamque diuturno studio 
" edoctus unice veram esse perspexeram^ lon- 
'^ gius et ad metam usque persequi me debere 
'^ autumabam ^.' 



cc 



(C 



»> 



g Curae in Epist. Paulinas, &c. A.D. 1777. sect. 1. §. 9. 
^ Prcf. p. V. 



16 



Before Griesbach undertook the task of cor- 
recting the received text upon the decisions of 
his own judgment, Semler had pubhshed a tract 
containing observations upon the critical prin- 
ciples of Wetstein and Bengel, and another 
upon what he termed " The Hberal Interpreta- 
" tion of the New Testament." In these, as 
well as in the third volume of his Hermencu- 
tische Vorbereitung, he distinctly characterized 
what he denominated " varias recensioiiesr A 
few short extracts will shew how much Gries- 
bach was indebted to him. Commenting upon 
a passage in Bengel's Apparatus Criticus, he re- 
marked : " Codices nee sunt omnes e<r una re- 
^' censione Grseca descripti, nee antiquioris re- 
cens'ionis (qua utebatur Origenes, Eusebius, et 
Latina Translatio ante Hieronymum, ex qua 
et Copta fere est, et quae ex Syriaca posteriori 
^^ adnotatur) multa exempla ad nos venerunt L" 
*^ Haec fuit simplicior, rudior, antiquior recen- 
" sio ; brevjor etiam et minus verbosa ; ab ea 
" recedit alia, quae fere hoc eodem tempore Ori- 
genis sub initium certe seculi quarti in Orient 






i( 



5 Wetstenii Libelli ad Crisin, &c. ed. 1766. p. 177. 



i; 



(C 



ce 



a 



(C 






tis provinciis solebant jam describi^. Antio- 
chicB et per Oriejitein seculo quarto obtinuerit 
" reccnsio Gv?tC2L alia,Yecexit\ov,\m^\iY\ov, Ckrys- 
ostomus et seriores scriptores hoc tantum tex- 
tu utuntur^ et difFerunt fere ab eo^ quern se- 
" cutae erant vetustiores translationes ^. Diversa 
•^ Graeca recensio, quae olim locum habuit, pro 
^^ provinciarum diversitate fere obtinuit; Alexan- 
^^ drinam facile distinguere licet, u^gypt'iacis 
scriptoribus et Origenis discipulis fere com- 
muuem, ad Syros Coptas iEthiopas etiam vul- 
gatam ; alia per Orientem {AntiochicB atque 
" inde Constantinopoli &c.) valebat ; alia per 
" Occidentem. Inde cum Origenis et Pelagii 
odium crevisset, ecclesiastica qusedam et m2<27^a 
recensio sensim orta est e plurium provincia- 
" rum codicibus, qua adhuc uti solemus "^." 

Such were the materials with which Gries- 
bach erected the superstructure of his critical 
system. He distinguishes after Semler three 



k Ibid. p. 193. 1 Ibid. p. 198. 

™ Apparatus ad Liberalem N. T. Interpretationem ed, 
1767. p. 45. 



cc 



(C 



(( 



a 



18 



general texts ", the Alexandrine, the Occidental^ 
and the By%antme or Oriental. At the same 
time however he admits the propriety of a more 
extended division. For in his CurcB in Epistolas 
Paulinas, to which he often refers in explana- 
tion of his theory, he gives the following state- 
ment : " Detecta jam recensione una continuan- 
dum est illud, quod supra descripsimus codi- 
cum examen, donee nullus supersit notatu 
" dignus, quin ad certam aliquam codicum clas- 
sem relatus sit. Quot vero constitui possunt 
classes, tot numerari debent recensiones, Ne 
*' tamen praeter rem augeatur recensionum nu- 
*' merus, eo elaborandum est, ut codices omnes 
" in quinque aut sex classes generaliores dispes- 
" cantur, totidem recensiones insigniter inter se 
" diiferentes, et tempore locove a se invicem se- 
" junctas, reprsesentantes. Quo facto classium 
" singularum codices, si opus sit, in duas flu- 

" I use the word text for recensio as better expressing the 
sense of it than the word edition. Should we not rather 
term the corrected text of Horace published by Bentley the 
text than the edition of Bentley? And that of the New Testa- 
ment published by Griesbach the text than the edition of 
Griesbach ? 



(C 



(C 



ce 



a 



(C 



it 



19 



** resve familias porro distribui poterunt, qua- 
rum quaeque codices propinquitate proximos 
complectatur. Ssepe enim recensionis ejus- 
" dem plures et diversas iv^oiri^i discernere licet, 
" in lectionibus maxime ^^^a^ax^Tti^to-Tuta?, quibus 
" haec recensio ab aliis distinguitur, plerumque 
" consonantes ; sed multis tamen in locis ita 
inter se dissidentes, ut nova quadam distribu- 
tione opus esse videatur"." We here perceive, 
that he supposes the existence o^ five or six dis- 
tinct classes ; but, in an edition of the Gospels 
published the same year, he acknowledges the 
extreme difficulty of ascertaining their precise 
number, and of referring to each its appropriate 
manuscripts. " Quot^' is the language which 
he uses, " fuerint recensiones ? Ubi, quando, et 
^^ qiiomodo, (\n?tX\het earum orta sit? Quantum, 
" pretium cuivis statuendum sit ? Quodnam pon- 
" dus habeant ejus additiones, omissiones, mu- 
tationes vocabulorum phrasiumque? Ad quam- 
nam potissimum recensionem pertineat anti- 
quiorum codicum quilibet? (nam recentiorum 
*^ fere omnium textus seque ac textus receptus e 

«* Sect. I. §. 19. 
02 



(C 



(C 



€( 



20 



" pluribus recensionibus misere inter se mixtis 
" compilatus est.) Ad quamnain recensionem re- 
" ferenda sit, qucclibet e lectionibus ejus loci, de 
^^ cujus genuina lectione quaeritur ? Per harum 
" aliarumque similium quaestionum solutionem 
" pervenietur demum ad earn viam, quae ad ac- 
" curatam atque certam sacri textus emendatio- 
*^ nem ducit. Sed haec via [quarti unice veram esse 
" certissime mihi persuasum est) adeo est wipe- 
" dita hactenus, tantisque difficultatibus obstru- 
^^ eta, ut aliam qucRvere inv'itus sape cogererT 
Again: " Inter omnes recensiones Evangelio- 
" rum, (de quibus solis hie loquimur) forte satis 
" multas, &C.P" 

But, notwithstanding the consciousness of this 
variety, he confines himself solely to the triple 
division of an Alexandrine, a Western, and a 
Byzantine, text. 

May we not therefore hence conclude, that, 
feeling the task of accurately fixing the true 
number of classes greater than he expected % he 

P Prajf. p, xii, 

•J Indeed, in the first volume of his Symbola Critical he 
unreservedly confesses, from a defect of materials, his inade- 



m 



satisfied himself with what he deemed an ap- 
proximation to the truth, and was contented to 
finish, as he began, with only three ? But does 
this approximation afford a sufficiently solid ba- 
sis for a durable superstructure ? Can it furnish 
any thing like complete satisfaction ? It is ad- 
mitted, that there exist more than three princi- 
pal texts, perhaps five or six ; but three only, 

quacy to the undertaking. He published in 1777. his Cura 
in Epistolas Paulinas, of which he thus speaks in his preface 
to the second edition of the Gospels printed the same year : 
/' Primas hujus theoriae lineas duxi in Curis meis in historiam 
'' textus Epidolarum Paulinarum Grceci, quarum specimen 
*' prius nuper Jenae 1777. prodiit, posterlus mox sequetur." 
Praef. p. 15. But in the first volume of his Symbolce Criticce, 
which appeared in 1785, he thus applogizes for the non-ap- 
pearance of the second part of his Curae so long promised to 
the public : " Morem sic geram, ex parte saltem, viris doctis, 
" a quibiis jam scepius, publice etiam, admonitus fui, ut ad 
^' Curarum in historiam textus Grccci Epistolarum Paulina- 
*' rum, quarum specimen primum, ante plures annos edidi, 
*' continuationem me accingerem. Sed ingenue fateor, deesse 
** mihi adhuc subsidia nonnulla, quibus carere non potest, 
*' qui discrimina non solum ac indolem, sed quod difficilius 
" est, historiam etiam, origines ac vicissitudines recensionum 
*' veterum omnium ita declarare vult, ut asserta sua peritis 
" arbitris probaturura se esse sperare baud immerito queat." 
Praef. 

c 3 



22 



from an avowed deficiency of materials, are 
brought under consideration. He states^ that the 
" only true way'' of proceeding with confidence 
and accuracy is to ascertain the number, anti- 
quity, and value of all, and then to refer every 
manuscript to its appropriate text ; but that he 
was compelled, from the extreme intricacy and 
difficulty of the undertaking, to seek another path. 
Perplexed however and obstructed as the true way 
may prove, it seems necessary to trace and pur- 
sue it, if we are desirous of arriving at certainty 
in our speculations. A plainer and a shorter 
track may indeed be more practicable and less 
troublesome; but how can we be assured, that it 
will not lead us into error and delusion ? How 
can we confidently determine the exact classifi- 
cation of a manuscript, when we have profess- 
edly omitted to take into our computation two 
or perhaps three texts, the existence of which 
we admit, but with the character of which we 
are unacquainted ? Were we to suppose the pub- 
lication of six different editions of the same 
work, all from incidental causes frequently va- 
rying from each other^ and that a copy had 



23 



been taken from one of them, but from which of 
them we are ignorant ; should we, in ascertain- 
ing to which edition the copy belonged, think 
our investigation perfect or satisfactory, if we 
simply compared it with only one half of the 
number, neglecting altogether a comparison with 
the other half? And would not the difficulty be 
considerably increased, if we found, that the 
copy to be compared (as is supposed to be the 
case in the particular instance under contempla- 
tion) was not taken from one of the six editions 
immediately, but mediately, through the chan- 
nel of other copies, which had for a long period 
been successively transcribed from each other, 
and had strangely confused together the read- 
ing's of one edition with those of another? 

But it may be said, that, although we possess 
not sufficient data to discover the precise text 
from which a manuscript was indisputably de- 
rived, it is at least of some importance that we 
are enabled to ascertain its proximate relation 
to one out of three. Theoretically perhaps this 
species of comparative affinity may appear per- 
fectly harmless ; not so the practical use to 

c 4 



24 



which Griesbach apphes it. He every where 
enumerates its readings as evidences of the text 
to which he refers it^ and employs them to sup- 
ply the defect^ or augment the weight, of more 
direct testimony. But will so loose a line of 
proceeding bear the touch of a rigid examina- 
tion? Can its proximate be correctly represented 
as its real affinity ? To prove that it cannot, I 
would argue in the following manner: Gries- 
bach asserts, that the Alexandrine and Western 
texts have many readings in common. On the 
supposition therefore that a manuscript had one 
hundred readings common to both texts, besides 
fifty more peculiar to the Alexandrine, he would 
immediately pronounce it to be of the Alexan- 
drine class. But put the case, that the hundred 
readings, which the Alexandrine text possessed 
in common with the Western, were lost, (and 
greater losses it is presumed have taken place,) 
what would then prove his conclusion ? He 
must upon his own principles assign it to the 
Western class ; because it would be now dis- 
tinguished by one hundred peculiar readings of 
this class, and by only fifty of the other ; and 



25 

being thus arranged^ it would side with the 
Western, even in direct opposition to the Alex- 
andrine, text, to which it really belonged. If 
such a result accrue from a deficiency in our 
knowledge of a part of a text, less surely cannot 
be attributable to a deficiency in our knowledge 
of a whole one ; and not of one only, but of two 
or even three. 

Nothwithstanding therefore the great respect 
which I entertain for the abilities of Griesbach, 
I must be permitted to enter my protest against 
the substitution of absolute decision for con- 
jectural probability ; and it is principally to this 
point that my observations are directed. If ob- 
stacles to a more complete investigation exist, 
we may lament, but cannot annihilate them : 
by shutting our eyes we shall indeed cease to 
behold, but not to surmount them. The only 
true way of proceeding would be, as Griesbach 
himself admits, to establish a previous discri- 
mination of every peculiar text ; otherwise it 
is to be apprehended that we are treading not 
upon solid ground, but upon a critical quick- 
sand. 



26 



I must not however be understood, either 
here or elsewhere, as expressing my own con- 
viction relative to the existence of more texts 
than three, or even of that limited number. It 
is the hypothesis of Griesbach which I am dis- 
cussing, and not my own. To that therefore, 
and to the tenor of his argument in defence of 
it, I necessarily adapt both my language and 
my reasoning. 



27 



CHAP. III. 

GneshacKs Mode of Classification, No standard 
Text, Principle of Classification fallacious. 
Inaccuracy of his Calculations, Corrected 
Statement, 

I HAVE remarked, that the three texts, to 
which Griesbach confines his attention, and to 
which he refers all Manuscripts, Versions, and 
Fathers, are the Alexandrine, the W^estern, and 
the Byzantine. Under the last he ranks the 
received text, which he considers as the most 
recent and least valuable of the three. 

In deciding upon the classification of a ma- 
nuscript, he is guided by its various readings, 
or departure from the received text. These he 
compares with what he conceives to be the va- 
rious readings of the other texts, viz. the Alex- 
andrine and the Western ; and in whichsoever 
of the two he finds the sum of the agreements 
to exceed the sum of the differences, to that he 
assigns it. If the readings are few and not ge- 
nerally coincident with either, of course it re- 
mains with the Byzantine, 



28 



An early and tolerably pure specimen of the 
Alexandrine text he supposes to exist in the 
quotations of Origen. These therefore, distin- 
guishing their various readings even in the mi- 
nutest points, he has taken the pains to collect, 
digest, and publish, as a general exemplar of 
that text, in passages where they occur. The 
Western he thinks discoverable in the Latin 
version, and several Greek manuscripts evidently 
conformable with it. 

To point out the principal ground of his clas- 
sification, it seems only necessary to give the 
following short extracts from his Symbolae Cri- 
ticae. Comparing with the quotations of Origen 
the various readings of the manuscript denoted 
by the letter L, he thus expresses himself: 
" Quantus sit inter Origenem et codicem L con- 
" sensus, inde patet, quod conveniunt inter se 
" 519ies (saltem 481), diiferunt autem non nisi 
"^ 261 aut potius 202 locis. Hoc numero demto 
" ab illo, supersunt consonantiae 317- Eandem 
" igitur recensionem exhibere codicem hunc at- 
*^ que Origenem, recte supra statuimus, praeser- 
" tim cum consentiant non in solis minutiis, id 



<c 



(( 



(C 



29 



^^ quod casu accidere potuisset, verum etiam in 
^^ lectionibus gravioribus, et characteristicis ; sed 
neque in his tantum, quod suspicionem inter- 
polationis ex Origenis scriptis movere forte 
posset, verum in literarum quoque apicibus et 
^' minutissimis discrepantiis ^" In proof also 
that the manuscript marked A belongs to the 
same class in the Epistles of St. Paul, he thus 
states the affinities of its various readings : " E 
" variantibus lectionibus e codice A decerptis, 
" 110 consonant Origenianis, 6o autem ab his 
" differunt\" Upon the excess therefore of the 
agreements above the disagreements discoverable 
in the various readings of a manuscript it is 
that his system is founded. Such then being 
the groundwork of his system, let us now con- 
sider its accuracy. 

The various readings of a manuscript in its 
departure from the received text might indeed 
afford the surest basis for a classification, were 
the received to be considered as the standard 
text, with which all manuscripts generally ac- 

' Vol.i. p. 125, 126. s Ibid. p. 135, 



30 

corded, but from which they occasionally, and 
only occasionally, deviated. Upon this suppo- 
sition the character of such occasional devia- 
tions would seem to form the sole object of in- 
vestigation. But Griesbach allows the existence 
of no standard text, and argues that the re- 
ceived, as principally conformable with the By- 
zantine, is the worst of the three. When there- 
fore he stepped out of the path trodden by pre- 
ceding critics, and annihilated the credit of the 
received text as a common standard, even as- 
serting its inferiority to every other, ought he 
not likewise to have departed from their accus- 
tomed mode of solely contemplating in manu- 
scripts their variations from this ; because the 
object of his research simply appears to have 
been, not the character of particular deviations 
from any individual text, but the general coin- 
cidences of a manuscript with one text above 
another ? 

Few writers express themselves more dispas- 
sionately than Griesbach, or more remarkably 
unite modesty of statement with confidence in 
opinion. If however my view of the subject be 



31 



right, his must indisputably be wrong, and con- 
fidence itself should give way to conviction. 

But I may be told, that by confining his cal- 
culations to the various readings of the received 
text, he did not mean to represent that text as 
a standard, and that the result would have been 
precisely the same, had he taken into considera- 
tion the various readings of any other text. 

To this however I cannot assent. For, put- 
ting out of the question every idea of excellence 
in the use of the word standard^ still I main- 
tain, that had he limited his observations to the 
various readings of another text instead of the 
Byzantine, the result would have been very dif- 
ferent. Let us try the experiment with the. 
Alexandrine, which, being in his judgment the 
most ancient and valuable, we might have pre- 
sumed would have been originally selected for 
this purpose. 

The manuscript marked A he represents as 
belonging to the Alexandrine class in the Epi- 
stles of St. Paul, because out of one hundred 
and seventy deviations from the received text, it 
agrees one hundred and ten times with Origen, 



32 

and differs from him only sixty. Now let us 
turn the scale^ and institute a comparison found- 
ed upon its variations, not from the received 
text, but from the Alexandrine, or the quota- 
tions of Origen. Griesbach states, that the ma- 
nuscript A differs both from Origen and from 
the received text sixty times. He also informs 
us^, that it differs from Origen alone, when it 

* '^ Origenes dissentit a textu recepto 57ies, ubi e codici- 
'^ bus A et C nulla profertur lectionis varietas. His taraen 
*' addi possunt lectiones 39^ in quibus Origenes sibi non 
" constat. Inter has lectiones 96 sunt nonnuUae singulares, 
*' quas nusquam nisi apudOrigenem in venire adhuc licuit j aliae 
" vero in aliis quoque codicibus, patribus et versionibus re- 
" periuntur." Symbolae Criticae^ vol. i. p. 134. I have taken 
into the computation the inconstant readings of Origen, in 
conformity with the example of Griesbach, for this plain 
reason j because, vrhere he sometimes reads with and some- 
times against the common text, it is most probable that the 
inconstancy arose, not from Origen himself, but from the 
circumstance of his transcribers or editors having been most 
conversant with the common text, and having therefore in- 
advertently, or perhaps from partiality, substituted it. Thus 
Griesbach remarks, ^' Si vero consentit cum textu vulgo re- 
"^ cepto, a librariis aut editoribus operum Origenis, vulgato 
'^ textui adsuetis, invito Adamantio, obtrusa esse judicatur." 
Ibid. p. 131. 



iii 



33 



agrees with the received text, ninety-slx times. 
Adding therefore these numbers together, we 
perceive that the deviations of A from Origen, 
or the Alexandrine text, amount to one hundred 
and fifty-six in all. But is it not evident, that 
out of these it agrees with the received or By- 
zantine text, when it differs from Origen, ninety- 
SIX times, and dissents from it only sixty ? The 
conclusion therefore is unavoidable, and we 
seem compelled upon this calculation to class 
the manuscript under the Byzantine text, as 
we were upon the other calculation under the 
Alexandrine ; so that a diametrically opposite 
result takes place. 

Nor is the case different under similar circum- 
stances with the Ephrem manuscript, marked 
C, which Griesbach represents as completely 
Alexandrine. This he states " to have one hun- 



^ ''^E codlce C laudantur lectiones 96 consonantes cum 
Origene, et 20 tantum discrepantes ab eo." Symbolae, vol. i. 
p. 135. I am- aware that this instance is not equally strong 
because we cannot be so certain of the agreements of C with 
the received text^ as of those ascribed to A3 but it at least 
affords presumptive evidence. • 

D 



<t 



34 

dred and sixteen various readings in the Epi- 
stles of St. Paul, of which ninety-six accord with 
Origen, and twenty only dissent from him ; an 
apparently strong and sufficient proof of its 
classification. But if we take the Alexandrine 
text for the standard, and add to the twenty 
readings, in which C dissents both from Origen 
and from the received text, ninety-six more al- 
ready quoted, in which C as well as A dissent 
from Origen alone, when they agree with the 
received text, it will then follow, that out of one 
hundred and sixteen deviations of C from Ori- 
gen, ninety-six accord with the Byzantine text, 
and tiuenty only dissent from it, the exact pro- 
portion which upon the adverse mode of calcula- 
tion before proved it to belong to the Alexan- 
drine, but which now consigns it to the Byzan- 
tine. And it should be particularly remarked, 
that these two are considered by Griesbach as 
the principal and least adulterated manuscripts 
of the Alexandrine class in the Epistles of St. 
Paul extant, and that by the degree of con- 
formity with these he regulates the character of 
other manuscripts. 



35 



From the preceding observations therefore it 
appears, that the principle adopted by Gries- 
• bach can only lead to a fallacious conclusion, 
and that the same manuscript must by one 
mode of applying it be attributed to one class, 
and by another mode to another. 

But it may be further remarked, that Gries- 
bach himself seems not perfectly satisfied with 
his own manner of computation ; for in a sub- 
sequent part of his Symbolae Criticae he hints, 
that it would perhaps be proper to subjoin the 
differences of a manuscript, when it reads with 
the received text against the Alexandrine, to its 
differences when it reads against both, although 
in the instances given he uniformly limits his 
calculations to the latter. He is ascertaining 
the character of the Colbert manuscript marked 
17 ; for which purpose he compares it, not as 
before with Origen, but with the readings of A 
or C, considered as genuine representatives of 
the Alexandrine text. After having drawn his 
conclusion in the usual manner, he adds : " At- 
" que si posterioribus" (that is, the peculiar 
readings of the Colbert manuscript, dissenting 

D 2 



cc 



ce 



36 



from both texts) " vel maxime addas lectiones 
cu?n vulgar'i textu contra Alexandrmos con- 
sentientes^ nihilo tamen minus Alexandrina-* 
*^ rum lectionum multo major est^ quam dissen- 
*^ tium ab Alexandrinis^ numerus "." He does 
not indeed surmise that such an addition is ab- 
solutely necessary ; nor indeed is it : but ap- 
pears at least to entertain a floating suspicion of 
its propriety. Here, it is true, it would not, if 
calculated according to his numbers, have al- 
tered the character of the manuscript imme- 
diately under consideration ; but apply it, even 
thus calculated, to the manuscripts A C, which, 
instead of being simply esteemed accessaries to 
Origen, are at once elevated into the rank of 
principals, and how will the case then stand? 
The manuscript A, we have seen, has ninety- 
six readings differing from one text alone, and 
sixty differing from both texts. These numbers 
combined make one hundred and Jifty -sice read- 
ings, which, opposed to the one hundred and ten 
agreements, leave a balance against the union 

" Symbolae Criticae^ vol. ii. p. 135. 



37 



with Ori gen of ybr/y / C also has ninety-six 
readings differing from one text alone, and 
twenty differing from both, which to<7^ether 
make one hundred and sixteen readings, and 
these opposed to the ninety-six agreements leave 
a balance against the same union of twenty. 
Thus, upon ground which he himself consi- 
ders as at least fairly admissible, he experiences 
another failure in the exemplification of his 
theory. 

In all the preceding references I have pre- 
sumed upon the accuracy of Griesbach, and 
considered the numbers which he assigns on 
every occasion as correct. I must now take the 
liberty of stating, that we must not place too 
much confidence in the supposed accuracy of 
his calculations. Far am I from suspecting his 
fidelity ; but I must confess, that I more than 
suspect him of inadvertency. As I certainly can- 
not hope, and indeed ought not, to be believed 
without proof^ I will endeavour to substantiate 
the charge. 

A circumstance upon which he seems to lay 
considerable stress, printing his account of it in 

D 3 



38 



italics, is the union of the manuscripts A C with 
Origen in seventy-five out of eighty-eight places; 
but here he is indisputably inaccurate. His 
vyrords are these : '^ Inter lectiones illas 88 codi- 
" cihus A et C coimnunes, sunt 75, quibus suffra- 
^' gatur Origenes, et 13 tantum, a quibus ab- 
" horret^r The thirteen differences alluded to 
he gives in detail ; but besides these, seventeen 
more at least appear to have escaped his eye, 
which I have subjoined in a note^: so that in- 

^ Symbolae Criticse, vol. i. p. 136. The following are the 
13 readings given by Griesbach. Romans xiv. 9. where A C 
have xat f ^r^crfv, Origen has koli ocyecrtYj. 1 Cor. i. 28. = )ca(, 
ix. 20. 4-/>o^ wv aurog vtto vo^qv. x. 2. sS'aTrrto'^Tjcrav for 
itctTtrKTOLvro. Ibid. 33. <rvy.(po^oy for <TV(^(p£pov. xi.5. auryjs for 
kavrrjS. Ibid. 29. = aya^<w;. xv. 54. ^vr^rov rouro evSvcrY^raj rijv 
a^avaonav xoci ro (p^aprov rovro Bv^v(rr^ra\ a<p^a.p(TiOLv for ro 
^oL^fov rovro EvSvcr/rajf cK^^oLpriav xoa ro ^vrjrov rovro ev^v- 
G-rjrouj rYjV oc^avaa-^ccy. Galat. ii. 9.+/^ev« iv. 23.=r^5'. v. 19. 
=zij^oi^£ioLf, Ephes.iii. G.-f-Ivjcou after Xoirra;. iv. 8. = )ca<. 

y The seventeen readings omitted by him are these : Ro- 
mans vii. 14. (rapnivos for CQLpy.iY.05. xi. 21.=|XTj'7ra;^, Origen 
has zQ-ocroy ^a.\Kov and Tsoruj inKzov, 1 Cor. i. 20. ■=rovrov. 
iv. 9. = or/. Ibid. 21. ^§a.vry)ros for 'G^pa.orrjros. (A C Dam. in 
Wetstein. Woide Cod. Alex : unnoticed by Griesbach. It 
occurs again Coloss. iii. 12. A C F 31, 39 : unnoticed also 
by Griesbach.) vii. 7. for q$ twice, ix, 20.4-,aT^ ooy (x-vrog uVd 



39 



stead of only thirteen instances of discordance 
he should have given thirty ! Of the additional 
seventeen some indeed may appear unimportant, 

voaov. Ibid. 21. xgpoavw for xs^^Tjcrcy. xii. 6.=£<rr;. Ibid. 24. 
v<rrsfov[j.syM for u<rrs§ouvri. xiii. 8. 'uaitrei for sKitntrfi, 2 Cor. 
i. 12. -hrou before ^sov. ii. 2. =ecrr<v. Hahet Or: note of 
Griesbach. Galat. iii. 10. -fort. iv. 24. =aL Philip, ii. 5. 
(ppovaiTS for (ppovsicr^w. Ibid. 9. +ro. 2 Tim. ii. 21. =Ka<. 
Hahet Orig. ter. Note of Griesbach. 

Besides the above there are nineteen more, in which Ori- 
gen reads inconstantly, sometimes with A C, and sometimes 
with the received text. But Griesbach doubtless included 
these in the coincidences of A G with Origen) as he expressly 
states, that he included six others in the coincidences of A 
without C : " Ex his 35 lectionibus sunt 6, in quibus Ori- 
*' genes inconstans est." Vol, i. p. 135. 

The extreme toil and irksomeness of making extracts of 
this kind is so apt to confuse the eye, and weary the mind, 
that the inaccuracy of Griesbach is not perhaps so remarkable 
as it may at first appear. And as these discrepancies had es- 
caped him, it is possible that others also may have escaped 
me. Nor will he be found always consistent with himself, 
if a comparison be made between the passages alleged, and 
the notes of his own Testament. Thus in his reference to 
Ephes, iii. 6. he says in his Symbolae Criticae : '^ Post Xpia-TM 
" adjicitur lojcrou in A C Copt. Vulg." and ranks it among the 
disagreements of Origen with A C 3 but no such note occurs 
in either edition of his New Testament. In Wetsteia how- 
ever the circumstance is marked. I will add another instance : 

D 4 



40 



but they are not more so than several of those 
which he has himself noticed ; for what can be 
more trivial than the change of the £ into o in the 
word (7V[x(p£^ov. But it should be recollected, that 
he regards minutiae of this sort as sometimes 
strongly characterizing the country, age, talent, 
and fidelity of a transcriber, as well as the class 
of a manuscript. " Hujusmodi minutiae," he re- 
marks, ^' utilissime a criticis in subsidium ad- 
'' hibentur ad investigandum librarii, qui codi- 
^^ cem scripsit, ingenium, et ad indagandam ejus 
" patriam, aetatem, peritiam, fidem, necnon ad 
cognoscendam exemplaris, e quo codex ductus 
est, indolemV Indeed it is the trivial cha- 
racter of the readings quoted which he himself 
labours particularly to point out, commencing 
with these words ; " Pleraeque lectiones, in qui- 
'^ bus discedit Origenes a codicum A et C inter 
se consentientium lectione, exigui aut nullius 
momenti sunt." This also may be the case 






a 



6S 



In his New Testament, Phil. ii. 9. he remarks, '' -f-ro A B C 
*' Orig."' but in his Symbolae Critic2e he assigns no reading of 
the kind to Origen. 

^ Symbolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 74, 



41 



with a few (I have remarked but one) of those, 
which are added as having escaped his ob- 
servation : but certainly is not so with the re- 
mainder, most of which are readings common 
to A C with manuscripts of the Western text ; 
and many of them readings which he himself 
deems preferable to those of the received text : 
and that no mistakes might occur in my ex- 
tracts, I have taken care to verify them by the 
very text of Origen, which he selected and pub- 
lished in his Symbolge Criticse. 

yTo dwell minutely upon the inaccuracies of 

y Accuracy however in collation, where it is easily ob- 
tainable, may be expected. Griesbach complains, and justly 
complains in this respect, of the mistakes of Wetstein : but 
is he himself altogether free from censure ? The Boernerian 
manuscript was, published by Matthaii many years before the 
appearance of his last edition, and he notices the publication 
of it in his preface. Yet have I observed, solely in those 
passages of St. Paul's Epistles to which the quotations of 
Origen are applicable, more than ninety omissions of its 
readings, many of which at least should have appeared even 
in a critical edition of the New Testament professedly 
abridged. At other times variations are marked, not to be 
found in the manuscript. Thus 1 Cor. ii. 15. -f'z'a A D E F 
G &c. 2 Cor. iii. 10. ov for ou$b A C D E F G &c. But the 
manuscript G has no such readings. Both are blunders co- 



42 

an author, engaged in so multifarious and per- 
plexing an undertaking as Griesbach, may ap- 
pear perhaps a little fastidious. I will therefore 
content myself with subjoining only one or two 
instances more, from many which I could col- 
lect, to prove how cautious we must be in too 
implicitly trusting to his statements. The ar- 
ticle ccl before §vo ^j«^»xai Gal. iv. 24. he rejects. 
In the first edition of his Testament he says, 
= A C D E F G &c. Orig. In the last edition 
it stands thus: =ABCDEFG&c. Orig. 
3IS. but, in his published quotations of Origen, 
he marks no variation at all from the received 
text. Now it seems, that in his first edition he 

pied from Wetstein. I make no remark upon numerous omis- 
sions of G reading alone, or with F only : but why is G 
omitted in such readings as these 3 1 Cor. v. 7. srv^y) for 
s^v^ri A D E F I 7, &c. and vii. 13. a^sa-y} for apsasi A B D 
E F 21. 46? It certainly coincides here: nor perhaps can a 
sufficient reason be assigned, why Griesbach should adopt 
from Wetstein so insignificant a rariation as this, 1 Cor viii. 
5. ol X£yo[j.£voi for Xsyofj^svoi F G Mt. g ; and yet reject the 
following more important one, where G equally appears, (im- 
portant 1 mean as indicative of its class 3) Galat. v. 25. iryBv- 
{/.an ^oo^sv for ^WjU^sy Trvavf/.ccTi D E F G Vulg. unless indeed 
he overlooked it. But it seems probable that he never col- 
lated the MS. at all. 



43 



rested his assertion of the omission of ai by Ori- 
gen upon the authority of Wetstein, whose 
words are, " Origenes contra Celsum, p. 193." 
but, upon turning to the passage in Spencer's 
edition, which Wetstein used, we nevertheless 
find oci inserted in the text. Before his second 
edition, we may presume, from the words Or, 
MS, * that he more fully investigated the fact, 
and discovered that it was at least wanting in 

* For the manuscript as well as printed readings of Ori- 
gen, he depends upon the Benedictine edition. '^ Evolventi 
statim pjitet . . . utrum omnes operum Origenis editiones et 
manuscripti codices dictum biblicum, ab On gene excitatum, 
*' iisdem verbis exhibeant^ an vero lectionis discrepantia in ip- 
*' sis observata sit a Benedictinis editoribus.'' Symb. Crit, v. ii. 
p. 231. But in the present instance at least he strangely mis- 
takes the evidence of the Benedictine editors. On another occa- 
sion also he gives their evidence, not indeed incorrectly, but 
partially. In Philip, iii. 10. on the word a'viJ.iJ^op^ovy.evos he 
remarks, (rviJiy.op(pi^oy.syo$ A B D Orig. MS, Now the Bene- 
(^ictines print it <rvfji.[j^op(poviJ.£voif but add the following note : 
" Ita codd. Regius et BasiHensis. . . . Duo codd. Anglicani et 
*' Hosschelius in textu crya/xop:pi^oju,£vo^." He notwithstand- 
ing takes no notice of the Paris and Basil MSS. but gives 
the reading of the two English 6nes, as that of the MSS. in 
general without reserve, as well in his Symbolze Criticae as in 
his Testament. 



f{ 



<{ 



44 



manuscripts. This we may presume, but the 
very reverse is the truth : for the passage is not 
only found in the edition of Origen, which he 
used % with ocl^ as he himself correctly quotes 
the verse in his Symbolae, but a note also is 
added by the editors expressly stating, that, al- 
though Tarinus omits it, it nevertheless occurs 
in manuscripts ; " apud Tarinum dcsunt at $vo, 
" qu(B habentur in MSSr How could a writer 
of Griesbach's talent and diligence blunder so 
egregiously! The reader perhaps will think a 
single instance more sufficient. 

The preposition uVo is substituted for oltco Ro- 
mans xiii. 1. by A, and Griesbach in his first 
edition adds, by Origen ; but in his last he 
says, Orig. ap. JVetstein, Here is his authority. 
In examining however the passage as given in 
Spencers Origen, p. 421. to which Wetstein re- 
fers, we perceive not the least colour for a va- 
rious reading, it being clearly printed ^tto and not 
uTTo, precisely as it is in the Benedictine edition, 
the Symbolae of Griesbach himself, and the re- 
ceived text. It is the more singular, that he 

* Vol. i. p. 171. and 537. where alone it is read. 



45 



should have been misled by Wetstein in those 
instances in which he might have so easily cor- 
rected him^ when he was conscious of that cri- 
tic's inaccuracy on so many other occasions ; 
for in the readings of a single manuscript^ he 
professes to have discovered numerous errors 
and omissions : " Correximus igitur non solum 
haud paucos Wetstenii errores, sed protulimus 
etiam plus mille lectiones, ab illo plane omis- 






" sas ^" 



Under the persuasion therefore of the little 
dependence to be placed upon Griesbach's cal- 
culations, I have taken the pains to go over the 
same heavy ground myself, and to compare the 
various readings of the manuscript A with the 
text of Origen published in the second volume 
of the Symbolae ; a text, he observes, " prse 
'^ aliorum patrum textibus dignum, qui quan- 
" tum fieri potest accuratissime cognoscatur^." 
These, with other various readings in illustration 
of the same argument, will be found in the Ap- 
pendix ; and from a computation with them we 
shall perceive, that a very different result, with 

^ Symbolae Critic®, vol. i. p. 73. ^ Vol. ii. p. 229- 



46 

respect to the amount of the numbers^ will take 
place. Griesbach calculates the agreements of 
A and Origen in their deviations from the re- 
ceived text at one hundred and ten, and their 
disagreements at sixty, and therefore classes A 
under the Alexandrine text. I make the agree- 
ments one hundred and fifty-four, including 
forty-eight inconstant readings, and the disagree- 
ments one hundred and forty ; so that thus, 
even according to his mode of investigating the 
class, there appears little or no preponderance 
of the Alexandrine. But if we shift the ba- 
lance, there will be a very considerable prepon- 
derance of the Byzantine : for then the agree- 
ments of A with the received text in its devia- 
tions from Origen will be found to be four hun- 
dred and forty-four; {L e, one hundred and nine- 
ty-nine constant, and two hundred and forty-five 
inconstant, readings:) and the disagreements 
will be only one hVmdred and forty, leaving an 
excess of three hundred and four in favour of 
the Byzantine, against the Alexandrine, text. 

I have deemed it unnecessary to take similar 
trouble with the manuscript C, because it is im- 



47 



possible to reason from it with any tolerable ac- 
curacy. Griesbach states it to be effaced in the 
extreme, the parts of it disorderly arranged, as 
well as miserably confused, and totally illegible 
many pages together; whence he concludes, that 
we can form no just inference respecting it from 
the silence of Wetstein ^. 

The difference between the amount of my 
enumeration and that of Griesbach, particularly 
in the passages where Origen reads alone in op- 
position both to the manuscript A and the re- 
ceived text, is remarkable. It is the more so, 
because he professes to have carefully marked 
the variations of Origen : " In prim is vero lec- 
" tiones, in Graecis Origenis operibus occurren- 
" tes, diligenter a me collectas, sedulo notav'i ^." 
And that the source, from which he extracted 
these industriously noted readings, may not be 
mistaken, he refers in a note to the second vo- 

^ ^^ Quam ob causam, si quaeratiir cuinam inter plures lec- 
tiones discrepantes liber noster patrocinetur? ad Wetstenii 
silentium provocare nuiiquam licet." Symbolae Criticae, 
vol. i. p. 5. 

^ Preface to the New Testament^ p. 55. 



(t 



t( 



48 



luine of his Symbolae Criticae, which furnishes 
also the very materials upon which my extracts 
are founded ^ In so dry and dull an investiga- 
tion^ error perhaps is more or less unavoidable. 
I trust however that it does not often, if at all, 
occur in my own case; and that, should it occur, 
the same apology will be admitted for me, which 
I am persuaded may with propriety be made 
for him, that it has not been intentional. 

f My numbers are indeed necessarily somewhat larger than 
his, because I have not omitted, as he has done, the consi- 
deration of passages, in which C, as well as A and Origen, 
is defective. C is stated to be defective from Romans ii. 5. to 
iii. 21. ix. 6. — x. 14. xi. 31. — xiii. 10. From 1 Cor. vii. 18. 
to ix. 6. xiii. 8,— xv. 40. From 2 Cor. x. 9. to Galat. i. 20. 
From Ephes. i. to ii. 18. iv. 17. — Philip, i. 22. From Philip, 
iii. 5. to the end. From 1 Thess. ii. 9. to the end. From 1 
Tim. i. to iii. 9. v. 20. to the end. 



49 



CHAP. IV. 

More correct Mode of ascertaining the Class of 
a Manuscript. Comparison of A with Origen, 
JVith G or the TVestern Text. Affinity of X 
to the Byzantine greater than to the Western, 
or the Alexandrine. 

HAVING endeavoured to prove^ that Gries- 
bach's mode of investigation is unsatisfactory, 
and his statement of the number of readings in- 
accurate, I might now close my observations, 
leaving to him or to others the task of discover- 
ing a better exemphfication of the theory. But 
as I have proposed to subjoin in an Appendix 
a more correct statement of the number of read- 
ings, confining myself indeed to those of one, 
but that a very important, manuscript ; I shall 
here also attempt to describe what appears to 
me a more satisfactory mode of investigation 
than that which he has prosecuted. 

Upon the presumption of Griesbach's hypo- 
thesis, that other texts besides the three par- 
ticularly pointed out by him have a real exist- 
ence, although I do not admit even these, I have 

£ 



50 



already remarked, that perfect conviction is un- 
attainable. If we suppose the existence of five 
or six, but bring only three to a comparison, it 
is manifest, that we cannot possibly determine 
to which of the five or six any manuscript pro- 
perly belongs ; but merely, that it possesses a 
closei" affinity to one, than to the other two, of 
the three compared. This will prove the ut- 
most extent of our inquiry; but this perhaps we 
may consider as a sort of approximation to fact. 
I nevertheless doubt, whether so much can cor- 
rectly be admitted : for if, after having thus 
partially classed a manuscript, we proceed to 
tread in the steps of Griesbach, to use it, either 
alone or in conjunction with another of the same 
description, as an exemplar of its class for the 
comparison of other manuscripts ; and to repre- 
sent its readings, in the defect, or to the aug- 
mentation, of collateral evidence, as the readings 
of the text to which it is appropriated ; I very 
much fear, that, instead of approximating to 
truth, we shall only be employed in propagating 
error. This too, it should be remarked, is most 
to be apprehended in Griesbach's favourite text. 



51 



the Alexandrine ; because, if it really be a dis- 
tinct text, which I much doubt, it is the least 
complete of the three, the quotations of Origen, 
which are published in the Symbolae, being 
only applicable to particular parts of the New 
Testament, and not to the whole. 

With this caution therefore premised, that I 
do not attempt a perfect investigation, I proceed 
to detail what I conceive to be a more correct 
mode of ascertaining the relative classification 
of a manuscript, than that which Griesbach has 
adopted. And, in order to bring my remarks 
within a moderate compass, I shall limit them 
to the classification of the manuscript A^ in the 
Epistles of St. Paul. I have particularly selected 
A, because upon this manuscript, in conjunction 
with C, (which I do not take into computation 
for reasons already assigned, viz. the very mu- 
tilated and illegible state of its copy,) Griesbach 
principally depends for Alexandrine readings of 

^ This manuscript is commonly called the Alexandrian, 
\)€cause it was brought into England from Alexandria : but 
even the knowledge of the country, in which it was originally 
written, is only attainable by conjecture. 

E 2 * 



52 



manuscript authority in St. Paul's Epistles, 
and because it therefore assumes a prominent 
rank in his development of the theory. I also 
confine myself, in imitation of his example, to 
its affinities m the Epistles of St, Paul alone, 
because it is only in this portion of Scripture 
that he represents it as Alexandrine, referring it 
in the Gospels to the Byzantine, and in the 
Acts, as well as Catholic Epistles, to the West- 
ern text. His words are : " In Evangeliis ex- 
" hi bet recensionem Constantinopolitanam seu 
" Asiaticam, recentiorem, multisque nullius pre- 
'' tii lectionibus refertam; in Epistolis vero Pau- 
linis repraesentat Alexandrinam recensionem, 
ilia longe vetustiorem et praestantiorem ; in 
Actis denique et Epistolis Catholicis textum 
" sequitur passim ad Occidentalem recensionem^ 
" Latinae versioni simillimam, conformatum s." 
And in addition, that I may likewise bring the 
Western text into some sort of comparison, I 
take into consideration the readings of the Boer- 
nerian manuscript marked G, which I have se- 

e Symbolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 9. 



cc 



66 



6i 



53 



lected for the purpose, because it has been pub- 
lished throughout, and is consequently capable 
of a complete examination. From this, the alli- 
ance of which to the Western text may readily 
perhaps be admitted, as it is interlined with a 
Latin version, and bears internal marks of hav- 
ing been written in the west of Europe^, I have 
taken the pains to collect every peculiar reading 
which I could discover, and have inserted the 
whole in the Appendix. It cannot indeed be 
regarded as a pure specimen of the text to 
w^hich it seems evidently to belong ; nor will 
this be said of the quotations from Origen : but 



^ '^ In the Latin translation the letters r, s, and t corre- 
spond to that form, which is found in the Anglo-Saxon 
" alphabet ; a proof, that this manuscript was written in the 
" west of Europe." Note of Dr. Marsh to Michaelis, vol. ii. 
part i. p. 676. It is indeed mutilated in a few passages, 
where A has the followino^ four various readintrs : 1 Cor. iii. 
10. sSijxa for rs^siKO,. Ibid. 13. +a,vro. vi. 10. =ou. Coloss. 
ii. 8. srai vi^acs for y^a^ srcci. But even upon the suppo- 
sition that both manuscripts coincided in all these read- 
ings, the augmentation to the number of G would be 
very inconsiderable : a circumstance however not very pro- 
bable. 



i< 



E 3 



54 



each may at least serve for the purpose of a ge- 
neral comparison, in the defect of a better. 

Griesbach's mode of ascertaining: the class of 
a manuscript is, as I have observed, to compute 
its various readings or deviations from the re- 
ceived text ; and if they prove numerous, to 
take it from the Byzantine, and to rank it under 
that text which appears principally to partici- 
pate in them. The inadequacy of this mode to 
the end proposed I have sufficiently pointed 
out, and shall therefore take the liberty of sug- 
gesting another. 

The object simply seems to be, to determine, 
with which out of three texts a manuscript has 
the greatest conformity. And this J[ presume 
can only be effected, not by considering the cha- 
racter of its deviations from one particular text, 
but the separate sums of its agreements or dis- 
agreements with all three ^ each contrasted with 
the other. If we possessed three different and 
dissimilar editions of the same book, and a copy 
taken from one of them, but from which we 
knew not, and were desirous of ascertaining the 
fact, how should we proceed? Should we not 



1 



ys 



55 



compare it with them all separately, and in 
whichsoever we found its affinities more or its 
differences less, to that assign it ? The reasoning 
is so obvious, that I am at a loss to conceive 
how any other could have been adopted. 

I use the words agreements or disagreements y 
because we shall perceive that both modes of 
computation lead precisely to the same result. 
I shall subjoin an example of both, by way of 
illustration in a comparison of A with the Alex- 
andrine and Byzantine texts, according to the 
numbers of Griesbach. 

The agreements of A with Origen, in passages 
where they deviate from the Byzantine text, are 
stated by him at one hundred and ten. The 
various readings of Origen, where A sides with 
the Byzantine text, or in other words the agree- 
ments of A with the Byzantine text, where both 
deviate from Origen, are stated at ninety-six. 
Now the latter sum subtracted from the former 
leaves a remainder of only fourteen in favour of 
Origen or the Alexandrine text. Such is the 
result of the agreements. With respect to the 
disagreements an inverse mode of calculation 
must be pursued. The agreements of A with 

E 4 



56 



Origen, which are also deviations from the By^ 
zantine tewt, amount to one hundred and ten. 
Besides these, A is said to deviate from both 
Origen and the Byzantine text sixty times. 
Now these deviations united make one hundred 
and seventy, which form the disagreements of A 
with the Byzantine text. In the same manner 
the agreements of A with the Byzantine text, 
which are hkewise deviations from Origen^ are 
stated at ninety-six. These added to the sixty 
deviations of A from both texts make together 
one hundred and fifty-six, which form the dis- 
agreements of A with Origen or the Alexandrine 
text. Now if we subtract the latter number 
from the former, that is, one hundred and fifty- 
six from one hundred and seventy, the remain- 
der will he fourteen, exactly as in the preceding 
instance ; so that as before there appeared on 
the side of A with Origen fourteen more coin- 
cidences, so now there appears on the same side 
fourteen fewer discrepancies. Such is the result 
of the disagreements : and thus the agreements 
and disagreements are both found perfectly ac- 
cordant with each other. 

Plain and simple as this species of elucidation 



57 

seems to be, it nevertheless escaped the pene- 
trating eye of Griesbach, who, too much dazzled 
perhaps by the splendour of intricate and perplex- 
ing research, overlooked what lay immediately 
before him. When he threw his critical bowl 
among the established theories of his predeces- 
sors, he too hastily attempted to set up his own, 
without having first totally demolished theirs ; 
forgetting, that the very nerve of his criticism was 
a principle of hostility to every standard text. 

Presuming then that the mode of comparison, 
which I have proposed, is the most correct, I shall 
enter upon an enlarged exemplification of it. 

If I am told at the outset, that the exempli- 
fication will be needless, because an excess of 
fourteen still remains to prove that the manu- 
script A is of the Alexandrine class, my answer 
will be, that I am not contending for the alli- 
ance of A to one class in preference to another, 
but solely for the true method of classification. 
And even granting that I were, still might I re- 
mark, not only that there is some difference be- 
tween the numbers fourteen and fifty, the op- 
posite result of his method of calculation and 



58 



mine, but that possibly a more accurate investi- 
gation of readings may produce a still greater 
difference. 

In proof of which assertion I proceed to con- 
sider, according to the figures which will be 
found in the Appendix, the affinities of A first 
with the Byzantine and Alexandrine texts, and 
subsequently with the Byzantine and Western ; 
and, in order that the correctness of the mode 
may more fully appear, I shall compare the ma- 
nuscript both in its agreements and disagree- 
ments. 

Upon the former species of comparison, the 
agreements of A with the Byzantine text, where 
Origen reads alone, will be found to be four 
hundred and forty-four, (reckoning, for reasons 
previously given, the inconstant readings.) On 
the other hand^ the agreements of A with Ori- 
gen, where the Byzantine text reads alone, are 
stated at one hundred and fifty-four, which of 
course constitute the agreements of A with the 
Alexandrine text. Deducting therefore the lat- 
ter from the former, viz. one hundred and fifty- 
four from four hundred and forty-four, the re- 



59 



mainder will be two hundred and ninety in fa- 
vour of the affinities of A with the Byzantine 
text. Nor will the result be adverse, if we cal- 
culate the disagreements. Here the deviations 
of A in conjunction with the Byzantine text 
from Origen will be, as before given, four hun- 
dred and forty-foiir ; and if to these numbers 
we add the deviations of A alone in opposition 
to both texts, amounting to one hundred and 
forty, they will combined make five hundred 
and eighty-four, which will be the disagreements 
of A with the Alexandrine text. After a similar 
mode the deviations of A in union with Origen 
from the Byzantine text will appear to be one 
hundred and fifty-four ; to which if we sub- 
join the deviations of A alone in opposition to 
both texts, stated at one hundred and forty, the 
amount will be two hundred and ninety-four, 
and these form the disagreements of A with 
the Byzantine text. Now by subtracting one 
amount from the other, that is two hundred and 
ninety-four from five hundred and eighty-four, 
there will remain two hundred and ninety^ ex- 
actly as in the case of the agreements. 



60 



From the foregoing comparison therefore of A 
with the Byzantine and Alexandrine text, it 
seems manifest that its affinity to the Byzantine 
is considerably greater than to the Alexandrine ; 
namely, by the excess of two hundred and 
ninety-five coincidences, or by the defect of the 
same number of discrepancies. 

Having thus established its alliance in one 
instance, let us next turn to the other, and com- 
pare it in like manner with the Byzantine and 
Western texts. 

• The agreements in this case of A with the 
Byzantine text, where G or the Western reads 
alone, appear to be two hundred and eighty ; 
while the agreements of A with G or the West- 
ern text, where the Byzantine reads alone, are 
one hundred and twenty-three, which sum sub- 
tracted from the preceding leaves a remainder 
of one hundred and fifty -seven in support of the 
alliance of A to the Byzantine. Upon a similar 
computation of the disagreements, the deviations 
of A in conjunction with the Byzantine text 
from G or the Western, amounting to two hun- 
dred and eighty, being added to the deviations 



61 



of A from both, stated at one hundred and 
sixty-nine, make together four hundred and 
forty-nine. So also on the other side the de- 
viations of A in conjunction with G from the 
Byzantine, amounting to one hundred and 
twenty-three, subjoined to the deviations of A 
from both, stated at one hundred and sixty- 
nine, produce a total of two hundred and ninety- 
two ; and this latter amount subtracted from 
the foregoing leaves, as before, a remainder of one 
hundred and fifty-seven in support of the same 
alliance. 

From these remarks therefore it appears, that 
the affinity of the manuscript A is much greater 
to the Byzantine text, than either to the West- 
ern or to the Alexandrine. And from a ge- 
neral review of the whole we may conclude, that, 
in instituting a comparison of the kind, it is a 
point of indifference, whether we calculate by 
the agreements or the disagreements. The na- 
ture of the agreements cannot well be mistaken, 
and that of the disagreements will readily be 
comprehended, when we recollect, that what 
forms the agreements pf the manuscript with 



62 



one text, constitutes its disagreements with the 
other, the sums being only transferred from side 
to side ; and that, ahhough the amount of the 
deviations of the manuscript from both texts he 
subjoined, it is subjoined to each of the trans- 
ferred sums respectively, augmenting indeed 
their numbers, but leaving their differences pre- 
cisely as it found them. 

Among the various readings which I have 
collected in the Appendix for the purpose of 
this examination, several perhaps may occur in 
appearance altogether unimportant. But, as I 
have already remarked, minutiae are by no 
means overlooked, but carefully enumerated by 
Griesbach himself, who on a similar occasion 
observes : " Ne minutias quidem v. c. articulos 
^^ additos aut omissos, mutatum verhorum ordi- 
" nem^ &c. negleximus, ut amoliremur suspicio- 
" nem, quasi cupide in seligendis lectionibus 
^^ egissemus '." Nor have I rejected any upon 
the presumption, that they were mistakes solely 
imputable to the ignorance or inadvertency of 

* Symbolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 123. 



63 



the transcriber^ because errors of the most tri- 
vial species by being copied acquire importance, 
and because it is as probable that they will be 
committed on one side as on the other, so as 
not to affect the general result ; that the tran- 
scriber of a Byzantine or a Western manuscript 
or father is as likely to have transgressed in 
this respect, as the transcriber of an Alexan- 
drine. 

In computing the affinities of A to the Alex- 
andrine text, I have, in imitation of Griesbach, 
adopted Origen for my exemplar. He however, 
for a reason not perhaps very obvious, unless in- 
deed it be with a view of increasing the number 
of his readings, departs in the second volume of 
his Symbolae Criticae from his own rule pre- 
viously proposed, and, abandoning Origen, takes 
A or C for his exemplar. The effect produced 
by this new mode of propagating classes from 
wildings, in contempt of established usage, I 
shall next proceed to consider, at the same time 
however entering my solemn protest against it. 



64 



CHAP. V. 

Comparison of the Colbert Manuscript with A, 
Mistakes of GriesbacL Controverted Reading 
I Tim. iii. l6. Existence of the Alexandrine 
Text prohlematicaL Conclusion, 

SO highly rank the manuscripts A and C^ as 
exemplars of the Alexandrine text, in the esti- 
mation of Griesbach, that he represents the 
readings observable in each of them as readings 
pecuharly Alexandrine, and by them regulates 
the alliances of other manuscripts. He even 
proceeds further, and admits the w^eight of their 
testimony as Alexandrines in his calculation of 
probabilities^ improbabilities^ and certainties \ for, 
notwithstanding his theory of classification, in 
deciding upon the purity of a reading, he seems 
principally guided by critical conjecture. Of 
the second volume of his Symbolae Criticae, he 
employs no less a portion than from page 89 to 
page 148, and from page 62 1 to page 640, in 
comparing the Colbert manuscript 17 w^ith ei- 
ther A or C as representatives of the Alexan- 
drine, and w^ith either D E F or G as repre- 



65 



sentatives of the Western, text ; endeavouring 
at the same time to point out, from general 
maxims of criticism, by investigating the inter- 
nal marks of validity in their respective read- 
ings, the relative habits and value of both those 
texts. But, as I do not acknowledge his pre- 
mises, I cannot subscribe to his conclusions. 

Among the readings of A or C, described as 
peculiarly Alexandrine, occur occasionally some 
collected from the writings of the Western Fa- 
thers ; yet is their Alexandrine peculiarity still 
maintained, because neither of the Western ma- 
nuscripts D E F G is found in the catalogue. 
Thus in 1 Cor. ix. 1, a transposition of the 
words oux zkfxi BXtv^spog ; cux £*/** olttocttoXo; ; takes 
place in A B, in the Vulgate, and in the folloW'- 
ing TVestern writers, Tert, Ambrst. Aug. PeU 
Cassiod. Beda : but this reading is denominated 
peculiarly Alexandrine, because it is unsupport- 
ed by every manuscript of the Western class. 
On the other hand, in 1 Cor. vi. 9. ^^^^ (^oco-iXbiocu 
is put for j3a<rtA£iav Biov in the manuscripts A D 
17, 36, 37, without the concurrence of a single 
Father or version of any class: but this is termed 



> 



66 



a reading common to both texts, because it has 
the manuscript D united to that of A. Surely, 
if the ground of his reasoning be inconsistent, 
the result of it must be unsatisfactory. 

As Griesbach flatters himself that, in his 
comparison of the Colbert manuscript, he has 
fully illustrated the character and estimation 
both of the Alexandrine and Western texts, it 
may be presumed, that he has been correct in 
the number of his quotations. But to this pre- 
sumption I cannot accede. He complains that 
the Colbert manuscript has been most negli- 
gently collated. In the eighteen first chapters 
of St. Matthew alone, he collected, he says, no 
less than three hundred readings omitted by 
Mill ; and adds, that it has been as carelessly 
treated in the Epistles. He had not himself 
time, he observes, to make a complete collation 
of it ; but he accurately examined the first Jive 
chapters of the Romans, and the fifteenth of 
the first Epistle to the Corinthians^. To these 

^ *' Quinque prioja Epistolae ad Romanes capita, et deci- 
mum quintura prioris ad Corinthlos, denuo accurate con- 
tuli." Symb. Crit. vol. ii. p. 88. " In iis utriusque Epistolae 



€€ 
€€ 



67 

chapters alone therefore I will limit my remarks^. 
Of the readings peculiar to the Alexandrine 
text, he enumerates in these chapters fifteen ; 
seven in which the Colbert manuscript agrees 
with A or C, and eight in which it dissents 
from them ^. But this enumeration is strangely 
incorrect, as he omits one reading in the agree- 
ments, and not less than eighteen in the dis" 
agreements"^. Besides the single agreement 

*' capitibus, quae, dum codicem tractarem, Integra perlegi et 
*' curatissime excmsi, &c." Ibid. p. 132. Of the remainder he 
only says, '' Reliqua utriusque Epistolse capita cursim inspexii 
'' posteriorem ad Corinthios et caiteras Paulinas hie ibi tan," 
" turn evolvi.'* 

^ The seven agreements are Rom. i. 24.==Haj A C. 17. Tb. 
29.=7rop£<a A C 17. ii. 2. ya§ for 8s C 17. 1 Cor. xv. 5. 
sirsircx, for siroc A 17. Ibid. 12. ev v^iv nvss for rivss sv vy^iv 
A 17. Ibid. 38. ^i^wcriv avrcv for avrcv olSojo-i A. 17. Ibid. 
55. y.svTpov and viko; cbange places. C 17. 

The eight disagreements are Rom. iii. 22. = >tai sin irccvfocg 
A C. Ibid. 25 = (5'iar7;; titrraoo^ A. Ibid. 30. siirsp for sitsiTrs^ 
A C. iv. 1. TtpoTfciropcc for itccrsccL A C. Ibid. 11. itspirowr^v 
for TTspirou^Yj; A C. Ibid. 19, = oy A C. 1 Cor. xv. 36. ^ouoyO" 
vEiTOLi for ^woitoisi'Tcci A. Ibid. 54. the order of the passage 
reversed AC. 

"^ The omitted agreement is Rom. i 27. a§pcvs$ ev a§pB(n 
for apasyss sv a^ffsa-i A 17. 

F 3 



68 



omitted, there is indeed another, which he has 
confused with the coincidences of the Western 
text. It is 1 Cor. xv. 31. where he notices the 
addition of the word uhX(poi in A G 17? &c. and 
accordingly represents the reading as comnnon 
to both the Alexandrine and Western texts. 
But the truth is, that the manuscript G has no 
addition of the kind. It was a blunder of Wet- 
stein, which Griesbach copied in the first edition 
of his New Testament, but very properly cor- 
rected in his second. In his reasoning however 
upon the validity of this addition it is remark- 

The following are the omitted disagreements : Rom. i. 17. 
?£ for yap A. Ibid. 28. =:o^so$ A. ii. 1. accray.pivsi^ for xpiv£i$ 
C. Ibid. 5. avraitohasvus for aTToxaAu^/sw^ A. Ibid. 14. Troiw- 
eriv for tsoii] A. Ibid. 16. t) for ors A. iii. 7. Ss for ya^ A. 
Ibid. 22. sv Xpitrtuj Iijcroufor Irjcrov X^icrrou A. Ibid. 29. y.i) for 
ij A. iv. ll.=Kai. Ibid. 15. 8s for ya,§ A C. Ibid. 16.-f ij A. 
V. 2. + £v A. Ibid. 3. y.ccvy^uiiJisvoi for ycav^uj^s^oL C. Ibid. 13, 
iXXoyoLro for sKXoysiro A. Ibid. 17.=ri5; SiKaioa-vvr^s C. 1 
Cor. XV. ly. + 'KUi A. Ibid. 31. ^y^srs^ocv for vpLsrspav. And 
yet of the reading Rom. ii. 14. iroiooa-iv for iroLyj Griesbach 
was aware, when he published his second edition of the New 
Testament ; because in the Addenda be states, upon the au- 
thority of Birch, that, in the manuscript under considera- 
tion, the word is not iroiri as the received text has it, nor 
flTOiwcriy as the manuscript A, but itoiei. 



69 



able, that he proves himself to have been aware 
of another reading in the same verse in which 
A and the Colbert manuscript 17 disagree, but 
which he has not noticed in the disagreements. 
His words are, " Additum ut videtur ad decla- 
*' randum TjfxsTt^otv jcaup^rictv, ne JjWfTEoa et iijw,ste^» 
" confundentur. At nihilo tamen secus code:e 
*^ Alex, et iEthiops y\^i'xi^0Lv exhibent^ etsi aSeX^oi 
^^ addunt".'* By recurring to the omitted dis- 
agreements which I have given in a note, we 
find the substitution of %ia£t£^o(,v for JjonTE^av, 
which, like all the others, I w ill not say by de- 
sign, because I do not believe it, but from haste 
or inattention, he neglected to notice ! Adding 
then the whole together, we perceive, that, in^ 
jstead of seven agreements and eight disagree- 
ments, as he makes them, there are in fact nine 
of the former description, and twenty-six of the 
latter. 

It is to be presumed, that the instances of 
omission, which I have referred to, could not 
have been overlooked by him as readings of little 

« Symbolae Criticae^ vol. ii. p. 105. 
F 3 



ro 

importance, and therefore not worth recording, 
because they are to be found in his own notes 
upon the New Testament ; whereas two^, which 
he himself reckons among the seven agreements 
above alluded to^ were deemed too insignificant 
for insertion in the same notes of either edition. 
The conclusion therefore seems to be, that all of 
mine are alike important, occurring in his own 
critical selection of readings ; but that some of 
his are not so. 

I have confined my remarks to the five first 
chapters of the Romans, and \h& fifteenth chap- 
ter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, be- 
cause he represents these as the only chapters in 
which he had made himself certain^ by a per- 
sonal and accurate inspection, of the readings 
attributed to the Colbert manuscript. He has 
indeed himself, notwithstanding this assertion, 
grounded a calculation upon the general read- 
ings of the manuscript in every part of the Epi- 
stles alluded to ; but it appears a loss of time 
and labour to follow him step by step into so 

° Viz. the transposition of r<v£; £v \)\k.w in 1 Cor. xv. \2. 
-and that of aura; ^iiS'wcri in 1 Cor. xv. 38. 



71 



wide a field, where complete conviction must be 
impossible, as certainty, according to his own 
statement, would be unattainable. In the Col- 
bert manuscript he takes precisely what posi- 
tion he best approves ; but this is not the case 
with respect to the manuscripts A and G, be- 
cause both of these have been fully and faith- 
fully published. 

It may perhaps be thought, that the assump- 
tion of any manuscript as an exemplar of the 
class, to which it is supposed to belong, can 
prove a circumstance of no great importance. 
This may in some measure be true, when the 
object is simply that of a general comparison 
with another manuscript ; but it is by no means 
a point of indifference, to assume its individual 
readings as characteristical of its class, in the 
absence of more direct testimony. Griesbach 
however hesitates not to adopt so bold a mea- 
sure. Generally indeed the result is of little 
consequence, not even in the slightest degree 
affecting the sense of the passage ; but in one 
instance at least it is otherwise. I allude to the 
fielebrated, the often discussed, and the long 

F 4 



n 



tortured reading of 1 Tim. iii. l6. in which he 
proposes to substitute o? for S-co?. 

It is admitted, that all known manuscripts, 
with the exception of four y which have oj, read 
5fo?. The readings of three more, A C D, have 
been controverted : but Griesbach states, that A 
and C o'/igi/ially read os^ and D neither k nor S-iof, 
but 0. With this persuasion is he so strongly 
impressed, that he gives the following as the 
manuscript authority, by which he is guided in 
the formation of his decision : ^^ A C F G 1/^ 7^ 
" legunt 0?, D* habet o, ceeteri, quos novimus 
" omnes, etiam Matthseiani 13, Alteriani 8, et 
'^^ Birchiani 32, exhibent ^m.^ And of the de- 
ductions, which from hence he draws, this is the 
sum : '^ Tuentur banc lectionem (viz. <>^) anti- 

" quissimi omnium classium testes. Contra, 

^^ vero vulgatum S^eof nee Alexandrinae, nee Oc- 
*^ cidentalis recensionis primitiva lectio fuit, « 
*' sed juniorum tantum codicum, ad Constanti- 
" nopolitanam potissimum recensionem, perti- 
*^ nentium." 

It would be foreign to my purpose, were I to 
©nter at large into the prolix disputes which 



73 



have taken place respecting the true readings 
of A and C in this passage ; or even to par- 
ticularize the arguments^ by which each party 
believes that it has rendered its position im- 
pregnable. Griesbach discusses the question at 
much length in his Symbolse Criticae; where, 
although his own opinion remains by no means 
problematical, he nevertheless so expresses him- 
self, as if he were contented to rank the manu- 
scripts A and C as mere neutrals in the contest. 
He observes : " Certe opponi nobis nullo modo 
*^ potest hie codex (A), sed nisi a nostris parti- 
" bus stare judicetur, saltem neutrarum partium 
" esse censendus est. De codice C supra jam 
*' vidimus, si vel maxime ad argumentum ab 
omnium ejusdem familiae testium consensu 
ductum plane non attendatur, tamen, propter 
varia indicia in codice ipso oh\'\2iy probabilius 
^' ei tribui o? quam ^m p." In his notes however 
to the New Testament, he admits neither neu- 
trality in one case, nor probability in the other ; 
but assumes certainty in both. 

p Symbols Criticaej vol, i. p. 25. 






74 



Let us now take a summary view of his ar- 
gument. Every manuscript which he classes 
as Byzantine uniformly has S^io?, F and G Wes- 
tern manuscripts have og, and D has o ; but A C 
17, 73 all have oj, and three of these he contem- 
plates as more or less Alexandrine. The affi- 
nity indeed of 17 he does not place in the high- 
est rank ; but that of A and C he regards as a 
very close approximation. The proof therefore 
that his adopted reading belongs to the Alexan- 
drine text rests upon the classification of these 
manuscripts; and, pronouncing them to be A- 
lexandrine, he concludes that their reading also 
must be Alexandrine. Doubt, however, but the 
legitimacy of his classification, and his con- 
clusion instantly falls to the ground. 

To the Byzantine and Western Fathers, in 
corroboration of their respective readings, are 
made many satisfactory references ; but in his 
appeal to the direct testimony of the Alexan- 
drine, Griesbach is not merely scanty, but de- 
fective. Athanasius and others, he states, are 
silent. Clemens says, jotuo-Tii^tov /asS-' ^fxoov £i$ov ttl 
nyyiXoi 70V ^kttov : therefore it is to be supposed, 



75 



that Clemens certainly did not read ^iti^% be- 
cause he substitutes p^^^to-rov for 5£ov. Not that 
it would have been conclusive had he read ^fo?, 
because Gregory Thaumat. or rather Apollinaris, 
uses indeed ^eof, (his words being 3^fo? iv a-ot^yn 
q)uvs^u^ng,) but is notwithstanding represented as 
meaning ^pi<rros. It is on Cyril, however, that 
Griesbach principally depends, who indisputa- 
bly quotes the passage more than once ; yet al- 
though the printed copies of that Father's works 
have S-fof, it is maintained that the context re- 
quires a different reading. If we do not per- 
ceive a little wire- drawing in this species of 
proof, which, being ingeniously deduced from 
the very materials furnished by the adverse 
party, was commenced by Wetstein, and com- 
pleted by Griesbach, we cannot surely admit it 
as direct and decisive evidence of a reading at- 
tributable to the Alexandrine Fathers. And not 
thus admitting it, where among the Alexan- 
drines are we to look for the reading in ques- 
tion, except it be in the manuscripts A C 

<i '^ Nonnulli Patres Graeci eerie non legerunt ^eo;. Clem. 
'' Alex. &c." 



76 



IJ^ previously referred to, of which only one% 
and that but generally allied, certainly reads o?, 
while the other two, whatsoever their affinities 
may be, are at least doubtful? But this is not 
all. Suppose but the neutrality of A and C, and 
the preponderance of manuscript authority on 
the side of the Alexandrine text will be thrown 
into the scale of the Byzantine, which invaria- 
bly reads ^bos: for then there will remain only 
the manuscript 17 for the reading 0?, while that 
of ^Bos will be supported by every other manu- 
script of the same class. Of these he enume- 
rates the following: 6, 10, 23, 31, 37, 39, 46, 

^ The Upsal manuscript 73 Griesbach does not any where 
rank as Alexandrine. He only says, that it sometimes coin- 
cides with the best manuscripts, " Interdum cum optimis li- 
'*" bris consentit Act. xx. 28." but of its general readings he 
speaks slightly. 

» Of the Colbert manuscript 17 he gives the following de- 
scription : '^ Codex 17 Alexandrinis saepissime se adjungit in 
*' lectionibus characteristicis aliisque, ut interdum tamen ad 
" alios, praesertim ad Occidentales, nonnunquam etiam ad 
*' Constantinopolitanos se inclinat. Quamobrem ubi cum 
'' caeteris Alexandrinis consentit, pro Alexandrine habendus 
*' est J ubi vero ah iis discrepitj dissensus ejus cceterorum con- 

sensioni opponi non debet, sed a recta via deflexisse cense- 

t)Lir." Symb. Crit. vol. i. p. 26. 



ec 
(( 



% 



77 

ATy ^^ qui omnes," he says, " cum nostro (viz. 
" 17.) cognati sunt V' particularly distinguish- 
ing the manuscript 31 as being intimately re- 
lated, " Admodum enim similis est codici 17 V 
Now these, and all others of the Alexandrine 
class, if others exist attributable to it, read, with 
the Byzantine text, S-fo?, while only the Colbert 
reads oj. It is unnecessary to point out the 
consequence. 

But it may be (Objected, that I forget to men- 
tion the Alexandrine versions as affording cor- 
roborative evidence. I answer, that I do not 
forget their evidence, but that I cannot sub- 
scribe to the propriety of its admission ; for, al- 
though I am aware that the classification of cer- 
tain versions, as Alexandrine, has been asserted, 
I know not that it has been proved : and, were 
it even more probable than it seems to be, I do 
not see how it could amount at best to any 
thing more than mere presumptive testimony. 
Besides, I am not convinced that any of them 
read U ; but rather that all of them, in con- 
currence with the whole stream of Western au- 

t Symb. Crit. vol. ii. p, 134. « lb. p. 150. 



(e 

tc 
<c 



78 



thorities, read o. The following is the statement 
of Griesbach : " jE versionibus Arabica polygl. et 
" Slavonica MS. et ed. exhibent solae ^los, cae- 
" terae omnes non S^fo?, sed pronomen o? sive o 
exprimunt. Nempe Copt. Sahid. et Syr. p. 
in m. OS qui : Vulg. vero et It. (clar. Boern.) o 
quod ; Syr. utr. Erp. iEthiop. et Armen. al- 
terutrum legerunt pronomen sive qui sive 
quod''' He here distinctly states, that the 
Coptic, Sahidic, and Philoxenian versions (the 
latter indeed only in its margin) read o? or qui : 
and that the Syriac, the Erpenian Arabic, the 
jEthiopic, and the Armenian all read either oj 
or 0, qui or quod. But on the other hand I con- 
tend, in the first place, that neither the Coptic, 
the Sahidic, nor the Philoxenian necessarily 
read o; ; but more probably use a relative con^J 
nected with an antecedent expressive of the 
word mystery, in precise conformity with the 
Vulgate : for, in both the Coptic and Sahidic, * 
the word JULVCTHplon mystery is decidedly 
proved to be masculine by the definitive article 
masculine ni in one case, and n in the other^ 
prefixed, so that the subsequent relative occurs 



\ 



i 



79' 

of course in the same gender. A similar re- 
mark, respecting the Piiiloxenian version^ is 
made by its Editor "^ whom Griesbach very 
properly terms " Whitius vir doctissi?nus^' and 
who correctly translates the passage " myste- 
" rium pietatis, quod manifestatum est in carne." 
Having thus proved that the Coptic, the Sa- 
hidic, and the Philoxenian versions do not ne- 
cessar'ily read oc, but most probably I ; I shall 
now show, that the Peshito, or vulgar Syriac, 
the Erpenian Arabic, and the iEthiopic, do not 
indifferently read o? or o, but indisputably o. If 
0? be the reading, it is evident that the following 
clauses of the verse cannot be grammatically 
connected by a copulative^ but that the passage 
must be translated as the Unitarians translate 
it, " He^ who was manifested in the flesh, was 
^^ justified^ Sac'' But, in all the versions alluded 
to, the subsequent clauses are grammatically 
connected by a copulative, in the Syriac by O, 

" The antecedent here is h];> which is masculine. The re- 
lative » OCT means simply quij, not necessarily ille qui as Wet- 
stein seems to have supposed ; and is more frequently so used 
than » alone. 



80 



in the Arabic by ^ and in the iEthiopic by (Df 
that is^ by the same letter waw in the different 
characters of the different languages expressive 
of the same conjunction and; so that the pas- 
Sage must unavoidably be rendered, " which 
" was manifested in the f^esh, and was justified 
"in the Spirit, &c." 

But I may be reminded, that I have forgotten 
the Armenian version. I have not forgotten, 
but purposely omitted to mention, it : and that 
for this plain reason ; because it reads neither 
k or 0, but, in conjunction with the Byzan- 
tine text, S^£o?. For proof of this I refer to 
the edition pubHshed by Uscan at Amsterdam 
in 1666, the princeps editio, and to a subse- 
quent one in duodecimo by another editor at 
the same place in 1698 ; all, except the octavo 
edition of 1668, (merely a republication of Us- 
can) * with which we are acquainted. Now in 
both of these the reading certainly is lu^ God, 
This blunder is not solely imputable to Gries- 
bach. It seems to have been first made by 

^ Marsh's MichaeliSj vol. ii. part i. p. 103. 



81 



Kuster, who, I apprehend, attempted no ne\y 
collation of the versions, but simply republished 
that of Mill. Mill however does not name the 
Armenian version in his note upon the passage ; 
but Kuster does^ probably inserting it by mis- 
take from the hurry of transcription. Wetstein 
appears to have copied from Kuster, and Gries- 
bach from Wetstein. Had Griesbach depended 
upon manuscript and not printed authority, it is 
presumed that he would have quoted it as such, 
precisely as in his note upon 1 John v. 7- But 
in which way soever the blunder be accounted 
for, the fact of the reading is incontrovertible : 
and it is equally incontrovertible, that the anx- 
iety of accommodating their version to the Vul- 
gate, which has been attributed to the Arme- 
nians, to Uscan in the seventeenth, as well as 
to Haytho, a king of Armenia, in the thirteenth, 
century, whatsoever effect it might have else- 
where produced, assuredly did not operate here. 
Of every version therefore thus quoted, Gries- 
bach's statement is incorrect : for one, instead 
of reading ej or o, reads 3-io? ; three others, in- 
stead of necessarily reading o?, probably read h ; 

G 



82 



and the remaining three, instead of indifferently 
reading c? or o, indisputably read o. 

I have been the more particular in my remarks 
upon this celebrated passage from Timothy, be- 
cause it is one, in which the consequences, de- 
ducible from Griesbach's theory of the classifi- 
cation and comparison of manuscripts, are most 
conspicuous. He is deficient in the direct tes- 
timony of Fathers, and even upon his own state- 
ment but partially supported by the collateral 
one of versions ; yet he pronounces o? to be the 
Alexandrine reading, principally influenced by 
the presumed authority of certain supposed 
Alexandrine manuscripts : then, annihijating 
the Western reading o, which is, in his judg- 
ment, a mere corruption of o?, (the very reverse 
of Wetstein's argument,) he represents Ig as 
common to both the Alexandrine and Western 
texts, and thus establishes a preponderance of 
classes against the Byzantine. Yet even ad- 
mitting his principle, but correcting his inaccu- 
racy, ought we not to draw a very different con- 
clusion ? Should we not rather say, that, be- 
cause the Byzantine text, with an infinity of 



83 



manuscripts and Fathers, reads Bios^ and because 
eight (viz. 6, 10, 23, 31, 37, 39, 46, 47.) out of 
eleven Alexandrine manuscripts coincide with 
it, while only one certainly opposes it, the other 
two being doubtful, therefore the preponderance 
of classes is against the Western ; and that Sro?, 
not or oj, seems to be the genuine reading ? I 
shall of course be understood as confirling my 
observations solely to the doctrine and effects of 
Griesbach's classification. To discuss also the 
deductions of his conjectural criticism > would 
be irrelevant to the subject before me. 

y To one point however I must be here permitted slightly 
to allude. Griesbach supposes that 02 was mistaken for 
©S, because the transcriber knew that the passage was 
usually interpreted of God, the Word. " Nimirum OS facile 
*' transiit in ©2, cum librarii non ignorarent, locum hunc 
*' vulgo de S-foy Aoycy intelligi." But surely transcribers by 
profession (and such, before the invention of printing, were 
those who transcribed manuscripts) are never in the habit of 
reasoning upon the sense of what they copy. Ask a law- 
stationer of the present day, after he has engrossed the con- 
veyance of an estate with a long description of the title, 
whether that title accrued by descent or purchase j and he 
will perhaps be puzzled to answer the question. A tran- 
scriber therefore, in the case under consideration, having 

« 2 



84 



Upon the hypothesis therefore under consi- 
deration, which represents the Alexandrine text 

his attention rivetted to words and not to things, would be 
more likely, I apprehend, to commit an error by omission than 
by addition -, to overlook the horizontal lines which distinguish 
©X from 05), than to supply them. 

I cannot help adding another remark with respect to the 
particular reading of the manuscript A. Mill states, that at 
first he suspected the reading of ^eos assigned to it j but that 
afterwards he clearly distinguished the ancient traces of the 
horizontal line which formed the : '' Verum postea perlus- 
" trato attentius loco, lineolse, quae primam aciem fugerant, 
" ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, praesertim 
" ad partem sinistram." Wetstein however conceives that Mill 
deceived himself, mistaking, for the horizontal line of the 
theta, that which belongs to an epsilon in a word on the op- 
posite side of the leaf. Prolegomena, p. 22. But VVoide main- 
tains this to be impossible, because the line of the epsilon in 
question is not precisely at the back of the theta, but a little he- 
low it. Not. Cod. Alex. §.87. The veracity of Mill, (to omit 
the testimony of others,) that he saw a line of this descrip- 
tion, seems unimpeachable. Can it be deemed remarkable, that 
it should have disappeared, after so long a lapse of years, in a 
manuscript perpetually examined in this particular place and 
injuriously treated, when it is considered, that Griesbach ad- 
mits the possibility of the evanescence even of whole letters 
in the Ephrem manuscript (sleeping quietly in the royal li- 
brary at Paris without molestation) between the short pe- 
riod of Wetstein' s time and his own ? " Immo vocabula non- 



85 



as the most ancient and most valuable, common 
prudence requires, that no manuscript be ad- 
mitted into an alliance with that text, except 
upon the most indisputable proofs of affinity. 
If an improper one be incautiously ranked with 
it, the confusion introduced must be incalcula- 
ble ; for the single testimony of this manuscript 
will then be regarded as outweighing that of an 
hundred others belonging to the Byzantine 
class. And if it moreover happen to be sup- 
ported by another of the Western, (no uncom- 
mon occurrence,) its reading, as far as the pre- 
ponderance of classes is to be regarded, will be 
deemed extremely probable : if supported by 
one or two more of its own class and of the 
Western together, indisputable. " Quotquot 
^' enim ad eandem recensionem pertinent, testes 
*^ inter se consentientes, pro unieo haberi de- 
" bent. Usu igitur venire potest ut duo tresve 
" codices tantundem valeant, quantum alii een* 

" nulla, quae ego legere baud potui, assecutus erat ille, sive 
'^ armatis oculis ea perliistraverat, quod equidem baud fece- 
" ram, Mve liter arum ductus ^ ut credibile est, inde a Wetstenii 
*' tempore magis etanuerint." Symb. Crit. vol. L p. 6. 

G3 



86 



" turn ^." Indeed the principal use to be derived 
from the estabhshment of different texts, as 
laid down by Griesbach, is professedly the de- 
fence of readings, approved by critical conjec- 
ture, but discoverable in only a few manuscripts, 
against those of an almost innumerable crowd of 
later and inferior ones. ^^ Praecipuus vero recen- 
" sionum in criseos sacrae exercitio usus hie est, 
" ut earum auctoritate lectiones bonas, sed in 
^^ paucis libris superstites defendamus adversus 
juniorum et vulgarium codicum innumerabi- 
lem paene turbam ^." It seems evident then, 
that the arrangement of classes is not intended 
to supersede, but to act in subordination to, 
conjectural criticism. Thus we perceive in John 
vii. 8. the word oux substituted for oMfrtMi (fyw o^nui 
avxQuivca us rnv Io^tiov rauriov) upon authority in this 
respect inferior; while in John i. 18. the word 
^ioq is not substituted for uto?, (o fAovoyovns vlos) or 
even consigned to marginal probability, although 
countenanced by authority of the kind every 
way superior, 

^ Prolegomena, p. 79. 

* Syrabolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 122. ., \ 



a 



c< 



87 ' 

But how is this design of Griesbach^ particu- 
larly in the Epistles of St. Paul, to be carried 
into full effect, if he be precluded from his ap- 
peal to the Alexandrine text by a defect of evi- 
dence? Or rather perhaps, when the appeal sole- 
ly applies to manuscripts, from all evidence 
whatsoever ? Yet this, if my statement and 
mode of reasoning be more accurate than his, 
appears to be the unavoidable result of my in- 
quiry : for, if A and C are not Alexandrine, the 
class of the others, determined only by a com- 
parison with them, falls to the ground instantly. 

In all the preceding observations I have adopt- 
ed, after Griesbach, the supposed existence of 
three texts at least ; the Alexandrine, the West- 
ern, and the Byzantine : but I must add, that 
the existence of the Alexandrine seems to me 
very problematical. That there is a frequent 
diversity of readings between the Latin version 
and the received text is unquestionable ; and 
that this diversity is sufficient to constitute a 
distinct classification of readings may fairly per- 
haps be presumed. That there are also many 
Greek manuscripts generally coinciding with 

G 4 



88 



the Latin version (whether derived lineally or 
collaterally from the Greek original of that ver- 
sion, or from some other Greek copy or copies 
subsequently rendered conformable with it, I 
do not apprehend makes any great difference in 
the question) will, I doubt not, be readily grant- 
ed. Nor will the argument be aifected by the 
presumption, that the Latin version and its 
relatives are nothing more than illegitimate 
branches of an ancient Greek text ; because, 
whatsoever credit we may attach to their pecu- 
liar readings, they nevertheless still afford us 
a separate classification : but that there exists 
an Alexandrine text, more valuable as well as 
more ancient than either the Byzantine or the 
Western, has in my judgment been never prov- 
ed. There is certainly no manuscript to be re- 
ferred to as containing any thing like a clear 
specimen of such a text. And what is the tes- 
timony of the Alexandrine Fathers ? Do they 
all accord in appropriate readings of their own ? 
Or do even two of them thus accord of any one 
century? They indeed often coincide with the 
readings of the Western text; but do they often 



89 



read against it? I do not mean simply against 
three or four Western manuscripts ; but also 
against the Latin writers and the Latin ver- 
sions *'. For it seems not sufficient to demon- 



^ The possibility that manuscripts written in Alexandria 
might have been adapted to the Latin text^ is thus stated by 
Michaelis in his remarks upon the manuscript A commonly 
called the Alexandrian : ** I confess that I am of the same 
*' opinion j because the inquiry turns not so much on the 
" Codex Alexandrinus as on the more ancient manuscript, 
" of which this is a copy. For if this ancient manuscript 
*^ latinized, the Cod. Alex, must do the same, in whatever 
" country it was written : and since it is by no means ne- 
*' cessary, that books constantly remain in the same countiy, 
*' and they may be transferred from one library to another, 
*' it is possible, that latinizing copies were brought from Italy 
'^ or the west of Africa into Egypt or Greece ; a faithful tran- 
*' script therefore from any one of these would likewise 
*' latinize, though written in Constantinople, Greece, or 
'* Egypt," Vol. ii. part i. p. 196. The following is the note 
of Dr. Marsh : '' The possibility that Greek manuscripts in 
*' AlexaTidria were altered from the Latin, no one can deny. 
** Even so early as the time of Origen single alterations 
*' might have taken place j for the learned Father, in a pas- 
•*' sage quoted by Wetstein in his note to Matt. viii. 28. 
" complains of erroneous readings sv foi$ lAAryvixoi^ avri^ 
*' 'Yp!X(poi$, which clearly implies the use of manuscripts 
"" written in some other language tban the Greek : and, as 

he spent some time in Rome, it is not impossible that he 



ft 



90 



"strate, that Origen, or any other Alexandrine 
Father, has numerous variations from the By- 
zantine text : but also that these variations from 
the Byzantine do not coincide with the West- 
ern, that mighty rod of Aaron ever prepared to 
swallow the feebler rods of Egypt ; nor even to 
shew, that they are occasionally unconnected as 
well with the Western as with the Byzantine, 
unless it can be proved, that their irregularities 
in this respect are constant and peculiar ; not 
mere anomalies arising from accidental causes, 
and common to both the other texts. At pre- 
sent we can only presume upon the frequent 
recurrence of characteristical readings, until a 
collection of them be made and published from 
the joint writings of the Alexandrine Fathers. 
This however is a task which has never been at- 
tempted, although it seems to form an absolute 
preliminary to decision ; and which, I appre- 
hend, if ever undertaken, will at least prove as 
difficult in its accomplishment as hopeless in 
its effect. 

" made use of the established version of a church, which at all 
times maintained the highest authority." 



(C 



91 



I am aware that the reflections which I make 
run counter to pubHc prejudice, to the opinion 
of many whose Hterary talents concihate my 
esteem, and whose critical acumen command 
my respect. But, in the republic of letters, no 
supremacy is admissible but that of truth ; and 
I flatter myself, that I possess the same claim 
to the candour of others, which Griesbach has 
to mine. I shall not therefore, I trust, be mis- 
construed as wishing unnecessarily to diminish 
the number of classes adopted by him, from 
an overweening fondness for any pre-conceiv- 
ed system of my own, to which his allotted 
number might be deemed inimical. On the 
other hand, I sincerely wish that it could be 
augmented, convinced that the rule of classifica- 
tion would afford no inconsiderable advantages 
to textual criticism, could it be in more in- 
stances satisfactorily exemplified. I have ne- 
vertheless censured what appears to me an im- 
portant oversight in his argument; the presump- 
tion of five or six classes, but the investigation 
of only three, and that with the persuasion of as 
decisive an issue as if a perfect knowledge of the 



92 



whole had been attained : for I cannot admit 
the accuracy of that reasoning, which, from de- 
fective premises, attempts to draw complete con- 
clusions. Instead of estabhshing five or six 
classes, I confess that I see not good ground for 
the admission of even three. I do not however 
deny, that these, or more than these, exist, be- 
cause their existence is possible ; but I contend, 
that it has not been sufficiently proved. 

The idea of a classification of manuscripts 
on an extended scale is doubtless captivating, 
fraught with hope, and pregnant with promise : 
but the moment we commence its reduction to 
practice, difficulties start up on every side, and 
conjecture begins to supply the place of convic- 
tion. By an intricate and involved analysis we 
are tempted to exalt possibilities into probabili- 
ties, and probabilities into certainties ; we raise 
class over class in our system, as children pic- 
ture castle rising over castle in a stormy cloud, 
soon to be immerged in gloom and obscurity. 
But, although the prospect before us affords 
enough to satiate, there is, I fear, little in it to 
satisfy. We find ample scope for the sportive 



93 



gambols of imagination, but no very solid foot- 
ing for the soberer exertions of reason : while 
we fancy ourselves to be walking in the broad 
light of day, we may prove to be but wildly 
wandering in the dark, and stumbling at every 
step. 



APPENDIX. 



Readings of Origen alone^ where the Manuscript 
A agrees with the received Text, 

The Extracts are taken from the second Volume of the 
Symbolae Criticae, and limited to passages in which nei- 
ther Origen nor A is defective. 

JlvOMANS i. I. X^idTs Irjo-tf for 1*3(78 Xpia-rs, Ibid. Il^ 
=T<. Ibid. v[ji,iv ^(^oipKrfjia. for yoLpiaiKot. vfiiv. Ibid. i8. on 
for yap. Ibid. 25. aAAa^avrsj for ^usraKKoL^aVT^, Ibid. 
27. otpcsvss for agfsvsg, B D G Ed. ii. 8. xocxiu for 
oBixia. Ibid, g. + xon, Ibid.=Ts. Ibid. 10. =§6 D et 
MSS. Ibid. 16. £V XoKTTco I>j(rtf for ^tx I)j(r« XpKTTov* iii, 
19. Kuhsi for Aeya. Ibid. 21. = t«. Ibid. 2^.'=sig svhi^iv 
T>3J hxcuoavvr}^. Ibid. 30. = 6. v. 3. }cotv^oo[/.£voi for xaup^co- 
/uts^a Tert. Ibid. 5.'J-t8. Ibid. 7. jxoytj for jxoA<j. Ibid. 
4-Toy. Ibid. i3. + r| before d[/,oipTiu, Ibid. 17. l2ot<n\svovG-^ 
for /3a<r/Aey(r80"K v'i» 4. + X0H <ruvevs(rTY}xi-v avTcp, vu.y, = sp8-^ 
Ij^sv, viii. 3. = xaj Hilar. Amb. Ambrst. Ibid. 11. §/a ro 
evoixouv auToy Trvsuixoc for Sta rs sv^kovto; avrov 7rvsv[j,ocTOs D 
E F G Vulg. It. Ibid. 22. j-sva^s* for o-yrsva^g* Vulg. 
clar. Ambr. Pel. Ibid. 26. (rrsvixy^o^ aXccKriToig virspsv- 
ruy^oLVsi for UTrspgvryyp^avsi (TTSvexryiJiOig u\a,X:^TOi$, Ibid. 36* 
TtoKTocv for 6A>3V. ix. 7. oo'oj for or e*(r*. Ibid. Travrw? for 
TravTSf. Ibid.H-xai, Ibid. i2.^ayT)] D clar. Aug, 



96 



Ambrst. Beda. Ibid. 13. xada^rep for xo^wj. Ibid. 23. 
= xai Vulg. Hier. Pel. Sedul. Fulg. Ibid. 33. = £7r' olutm 
*x. 4. -|-xai Trgo^YjToov Cyril. **Ibid. 8. + r) ygot^vi D E 
F G Vulg. It. &c. Cyr. Ibid. 10. jotsv for yap. xii. 14. 
Touj ep^<&^8f y)ju.6oy for t«j Stcoxovraj ^ju,aj. Ibid. 16. u\J/)jXo- 
^gov8VTs$ for ra uv|/*jXa (ppovsvrsc, xiii. 2. o» avdeftjxorgj for 
6 ctVTnu(r(roixsvog. Ibid, av^ig-avrai for av3^ef>jxev. * Ibid. 9. 
00 fovev(rsiS} ov fi.oi^sv(Tsi$ for 8 [j,oi^sv(rstg, a (povsvo'sis Clera. 
* Ibid.=:oux e%i^v[jLYi(T6ig Clem. Ibid, sv tco Xoyop tovtoo for 
rovTco Tw Xoycjp D E F G. Ibid. la. sxBuo-ajxevoi for aTrodco- 
/xe^a. Ibid. 13. ou for ]x>j. Ibid, ou for jw.)j a second time, 
xiv. 9. = xa» avs^Yiasv F G Vulg. xvi. 20. = t))j sipv^vrig. 
Ibid. 25« = xa* TO TtYipuyiiu Itjcrou Xpia-Tov. Ibid. 26. + xai 
T>jj £7ri(pav6iaj Ttf xu/5»« r^cov Iijcs X^tftf. Codd. ap. Hier, 
This addition occurs thrice. 

I Corinthians i. 23.4-I>30'8v. ii. 2. firfisv sihvon for « 
aSsVai T<. * Ibid. 5. rijawv for ujotcov Clem. Mt. k. Ed. 
Ibid. II. w§ 8hig oihv for rig oihv, ** iii. I. ufjuv \txXri<Tat 
for KctXr}(roi.i vixiv Vulg. Chry. Cypr. Aug. Clemens. 
Ibid. = aSgX<poi. Ih'id. 6. ev^v}(rsv for Yjv^oivsv. Ibid. ll. = aX- 
\ov. Ibid. 12. oixo'^o[ji,si for e7ro<xo5o/x,si. iv. 19. tov Trsi^ycrw- 
ftsvov for Tov 7re(pv(rioofji,svoov, v. 4. = ^jtt«;v Codd. Amb. Aug. 
Pel. Ibid. 13. s^M^sv for s^ca, vi. 3. + %. Ibid. 4. eftfSevwjxs- 
voj for e^8^svT^[jLsvo5, Ibid. I9. = ev ujxiv. Ibid, wro for aTro, 
vii. ^. siri^otpYi vfji,iv for -TTsipct^i^ viLotg, Ibid. 7.=xa<. Ibid. 
12. xayco for eyo). Ibid. + xai. Ibid. 32. ^sw for xy^iw Vulg. 
Tert. Cypr. Hier. &c. viii. 13. xpsa for Ppa)fji.u, ix. a. 
+ xat. Ibid. JU.OU T>jj for t>)j sjw-^js. Ibid. 14. §»a^>)v for ^>;v. 
Ibid. 19.4 awTcov. * * Ibid. 22. xepS^jcrco for crojcrco Clem. 
Tert. Aug. Hier. x. 11. a-uvs^amv for a-ws^aivov. Ibid, 
ly. + xaj. Ibid. 32. = xa* sAX>3(n. xi. 4. sv^ofxsvog for tt^oct- 
sv^o[ji,svos. Ibid. 25. sav for av. Ibid. 29. + 5/5. Ibid. = e«y- 



II 



9; 



Ttt), xii. S. + dsoy. Ibid, ll. ravTa le itoLVTct for Travret ^f 
Tiscara. Ibid. = To D F. Ibid, x^q^f^y^y for 5<a<pouv. Ibid. 
= t8<a D F G Vulg. It. Ambr. Hil. Ambrst. lb. 18. 
8^eT0 6 de«j for ^soj s^sto. Ibid. = sv. Ibid. 25* i"''5^*l"''*'? 
for |ut>j. Ibid. 26. a for sits. F G Vulg. It. Ambr. Pel. 
Beda. Ibid, xa* a for e<T?. Ibid. jaeXoj ev for sv ^aeXof. 
xiii. I. »j for xa<. Ibid. 2. ^ravra ra jaug-i^piot for ra fjLVfvipicc 
TzctvTu, Ibid. 12. S«* scroTtTps xoii for 8/ sa-OTtrps, Ibid. 13. 
ra T^ia Travra before 9r»f <j sXttjj uycxnni instead of after. 
xiv. 8. iile^s for rij. Ibid. 9rapa<rxeyajsr«i for 'na.poLrrx.wa." 
iTSTui. Ibid. 2i. = oTi, XV. 6. = £f. Ibid. 12. ex vsxpxv on 
for or* sx vexpcay. Ibid. 20. syriyspTon Xptcrroj for X^/<7toj 
^yriysprai. Ibid. 28. avTco rcc itoLyTo, liTtoTuyri for wTrorayij 
aoTco ra Travra. Ibid. = xa< D E G It. Hil. Hier. Victor* 
Ibid. 5i.=f(tev D Clar. germ. 

2 Corinthians i. 7. oi^ajasv yap for B^lore^, Ibid. 7. = or*. 
Ibid. 12. T8T0 yap ecrri ro xuv^t^i/,cx. y^i^mv for f| yap xaup^ijcij 
^/xwv aurij ef'"* Ibid. =r;/A«;v. iii. i6, + t»^. iv. lo. = xai. 
xii. 9. gi^sv for eiprixev. xiii. 3. si for £;ra. 

Galatians i. 4. ui/.cipTui\Mv for dfj^upnuiv, ii. 12. Iaxw^» 
for Tivaj aTTO laxw^tf. iii. 3. cup^ctfLSvo} for svotp^a.[^svoi, 
**Ibid. 19. ere^j) for TrpocrsTs^v} D F G Vulg. It. Patres 
Latin. Clem. iv. i. koo§ for eip* o(rov ^povov 0. Ibid, 
27 • wj ysypoiiTTOd for ysyponrToci yap, v. 2. ou8=y y^aj for 
UjU-aj oy^ev. Ibid. 16. ^rj for oy jw,>j. Ibid. STrtTsKeiv for rsAeiv 
Ibid. 17. jM-sv for yap. Ibid. 19. f^oi^sioti Tropveiut Sec. for 
^LOi')(sia. TtopvsiOL &C. Ibid. = axa^ap(na. Ibid. 25. ftvzvu.aixi 
^oofjt,sv for JctifAsv Trvsvpi-uTi, * * vi. 8.=layToy Cyril. Aug. 
Cassiod. 

Ephesians i. 4. H-s/j ro before eiva*. Ibid. 5.=Ti5(roy. 
Ibid. ly. + Tow ,&£oy. Ibid. 21. i^^ovcwv for BwaiJi^soog. ii. 2.^ 
WTTO for xara. Ibid. 3. >j|U.g^a for )jjw.sv. Ibid. 6,+r)(jLoig. 
Ibid. 12. ccKXorpiOi for ciTroXXwTfiaopLsvoi, Ibid, roy ^soy for 
Tijf e^rayyeAiaj. iii. lo'^yyv F G Vulg. cjar. Boern. Tert. 

H 



98 



Aug. &:c. iv. T4.=T)jf. Ibid. 27. Jwre for SiSorf. v. 2. 
eawTOV TrapgSoJxev for Traps^coxsv exvrov. Ibid.=7rpocr<po|5av xai. 
Ibid. 25. 60 J for xadcof. Ibid. ijyaTDjo-e. Ibid. 31. Ivexsi^ 
for avT/. Ibid.=auTOu D G Vulg. It. Tert. Cypr. Hier, 

Philippians ii. 7. av^^coTrou for av^pooTrctiv, Ibid. 13. «a- 
ros for 6 ^soj. Ibid, r^fxiv for u/x-iv. iii. 14. tcov ottkt^sv for rat 
fjisv OTiKT'ji, Ibid. 1 9. = 6 before ^soc. Ibid, 20. Ss for ya/j 
** Vulg. It. Patres Latin. Clem. Chrys. Ibid. 2i.=t« 
treioiJ^uTt, 

Colossians i. i6. = fv ccvtm. Ibid. + sits added twice. 
Ibid.=ra before ev roig D E F G Vulg. It. Ibid. + ra 
before ev rrig yvig Vulg. It. * * lb. 20, = Si* awrou D F G 
Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Chrys. Cyr. Ibid. 24. uvcntXripui for 
avTavamXripoi F G. Ibid. Trct^Yifj^uToov for <&At\|/ecov. ii. 3. 
= 7ravTej. Ibid. 9. eij 6v for cv aurw. Ibid. il. = >jju.«;v 
after (roipxoi:, ** Ibid. = too (yw^arog tcov dixugTtcov, Tert. 
Cypr. Cyr. Ibid. 14. ripiv for ijpxev D G. Ibid. 15. 
^piay^Ssva-us £V roo ^vkop for ^pnxix^^sucrug uvrovg ev ocutco. iii. 
^,-\-a(J's\'YeioLV, Ibid. 9. exSuo-aju-svoi for ccnsy^vcruij^evoi* 

1 Thessalonians ii. 7.=aAA.*. Ibid. 14. ra ayra for 
TuvTu F G multi MSS. Chrys. iv. 13. (as for Ku^a)$, v, 
19. oy (T^swuTUi for jxr^ c^swure. Ibid. 23. 6 Se dfioj for aa- 
To^ 8s 6^60$. Ibid.=T)35 sipv^vYi^, 

2 Thessalonians ii. 2. = Tap^ea;j. Ibid. 8ia Xoyov ftrjre 
8i« TrvsviJuuTog for 7rvsv[j.uro$ /xijre 8<« Koyov, 

1 Timothy i. 15. Irjo-oyj X^/oroj for X^kttoj I*jo-ouj. 
ii. 9. xoa-fxicos for noa-f/^icti D F G. Ibid. 15. sTrav |u.eiv>j ev 
for SUV ixeivoo(nv ev, v. 9. e(TTco for xaraXeyscr^co. vi. 8. 8<a- 
Tpo^tiV for harpo^oLs D F G clar. Ibid. lo. = e(rTiv. Ibid. 
17. yvpvjXa (ppoveiv for u\t/>3Xo(ppoysiv. Ibid.=^jw-iv. Ibid* 
wavra TrXovaricog for TrAoycico^ ^ravra D E multi MSS. Vulg, 
clar. germ. Pel. Ibid. 18. aya^ijj for xaXoij. Ibid. 21. 
Efauayrjcrav for ijo-Top^^ijtrav. 

2 Timothy u ^.-{-(lov D E Vulg. clar. germ. Am.- 



99 



brst. Pel. Cassiod. Ibid. jo. xvpiov for a-wr-ripog'. Ibid. 
16. 6 xu^joj s\so^ for lA?oj Kvpiog, Ibid. ]7. o-Troy^aicoj for 
iT'^ovdciiOTSpov D F G. ii. 21. = a7ro rourwv. iii. II. £9ra^oy 
for jofcoi eysvsTO. iv. 2. '7rupuK(xXs<rov for s'7riri[jt,Yi<rov Trapptxa- 
Aeo-ov F G Vulg. It. Ambrst. Pel. Aug. Ambr. 

Titus i. l^. yap for h. Ibid, s^ra for aAAa. 

Philemon i4.=c<;^. 199. 



Inconstant Headings of Origen alone^ where A 
agrees with the received Text, 

Romans i. 3. 4- to before xarc-Jt (rokpyict. Ibid. 5.-|-t>)V. 

* Ibid, 23. jjXAafavro for viWu^oiv. Cyr. Mt. g. k. 9, 3* 
Theod. TheophyL **n.^, + xui D multi MSS. Martin 
papa. Theodul. Cyr. CEc. Chrys. Ibid. hKUioavvrig for 
hxouoKpia-iu^. Ibid. 14. Ss for ya^. G Boern. utrumque* 
Ibid. Pi roiO'jToi for outoi G Vulg. It. Ibid. 1^. to /SoyA^jaa 
for TO epyov. Ibid. iJ.a.gTupov<ry^i for (rup,[ji,cipTupov(TYi^. iii. 2- 
TTgwTOi for 'TTpMTov, Ibid 25. alfLUTi uuTov for aUTOU oclixotTt* 

V. 8. OVTCOl/ TOJV a.yLOtpTO)KmV YI{J,C0V for U[JiCCgTC0X00V OVTCJOV YjfXUIV, 

* * Ibid. 13- y«g for Ss Germ. Cyr. Ibid. ly.^Tvi^ Sw- 
^saj Aug. Beda, Ibid. Ku^ovts^ for ?\Mi/.^oivovTsg, Ibid, 
/SacTiXsuowcri for fioco'iXsvo-ova-i, Ibid. Kpio-Tov iYi<rov for I>jcroy 
Xpia-Tou, vii. 9.=t»jj. viiL 8. ^cyvxej for ovre^. ibid. 13. 
T>3f <rapx.os for tow <rctfjxaToj D E F G Vulg. It. Tert. Patr. 
Latini. Ibid. l5.=7raAiv. Ibid. 18. aTroTcahuTTTscr^cii for 
«7roxaAu<p^>3va<. *Ibid. 28^ 4- to before ayabov multi MSS. 
Mt. b. al. 5. Theophyl. Clem. Ibid. 29.4-^)5^ So|>j?* 
Ibid. 3O.=T0UT0a^. ix. II. f^yihTrca for jO-rjTroj. Ibid.4-iW'»3T's 
before yevv)3.&£VTajy. Ibid, fx-^jre for jutyj^s. Ibid. l2. + auT»2 
D clar. germ. harl. Aug. Ambrst, Beda. Ibid. eA^r- 
TfiVA for ihu<rcrovt. Ibid. 13. xa^«7re^ for xa^wg. Ibid. 18. 

H H 



100 

-f 6 ^20J. lb. 20. "SCO. lb. 21,r=z(TXSVQg €i§ TljU,>]V foF 11$ Tl-' 

|x>)v (Txsuoj. * X. 4. irXYipoifjuu for xeAoj Clem. once. lb. 6, 
= evT>j KotghiA <rov, Ib.=TOV. lb. 8. + (r^o8pa. xi. II. exa- 
vfiov for avToov, lb.=^. xlii. y, too to <po/3ov to (po/3ov before 
instead of after rco to tsXo$ to reXog, lb. 9. toj Aoyw tOuto) 
for TouTw Tw Xoyw D E F G. ** Ib. = £v G Vulg. It. 
Patr. Lat. Clem. xv. I9.=xai xuxAw, lb. ewj for fts- 

I Corinthians i. 5. o'0(p»a for yvcaast. lb. 2i. + auTw. 
lb. 26. 8s for ya^. * * lb. 30. xa» Sixaiocrovi) for 8<xa»oo-yv)) 
Tl F G Cyr. Chrys. Ib. = xai ayiua-fjiog, lb. %ctgct for airo. 
ii. 2. + ey«). * * lb. 4. •cro^o/ for txra^oij Atb. It. 
Ambrst. Lev. Ambr. Sedul. * * Ib.=av^pawr»v>j5 D E F 
G Vulg. MS. It. Patr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. lb. ev aTroSafa 8f 
ju,aXXov for aXA' ev a^roBafa. lb. twv Xoyoov for Koyoig, lb. 7. 
Sfxaicov for y)jxa)V. lb. 8. TOUToa tow aiaivog for tou aicovoj tow- 
Tou. lb. XpKTTov for xupiov, lb. 9.= a. lb. o<5s for eiS?. 
lb. ii.=tou oLv^pcjoTTov F G Boern. Hil. Ambr. Vigil. lb. 
+ 6VOixoyv. lb. 12. UTTO for u^ro. lb. 13. -GrvevfjioiTixot •crveu- 
/xaTixoi^ for ijTvsu[JioiTixots 'crvsujtx.aTixa. lb. 14. eo'Tiy aoTw for 
ctuTO) fcTTiv. iii. 3. (ragxtvoi for cra^xixoj D F G. lb. I5» 
= §£. lb. l9.=TooToy. iv. I.+Tojv. lb. II. = xai. lb. 13. 
=Tot;. V. ^. = lri<rov Tert. Hilar. lb. 8. ov for ju.>). Ib, = ev. 
lb. Sg for ju,>j5s. vii. 5« ^oiv jji^i^ti for ci ju^vjti ccv. lb. (rv(ji(^covius 
for (njy.(^(avov, lb. 34. TrvsujW-aTi xa< (Toifj^otTt for a'co[jt,uri xai 
wvsujxaTi. lb. 39. = before the second avTj^. lb. ^povov d 
av>3^ auTijj 5»; for ^povov |tj avij^ oivtyi^, viii. 5. 'dsoi Xs- 
yoy^Bvoi for Ksyoiuevoh ^soi. '^ f lb. 6. = xai y//ttfij aj auTOv 
Clem, z^/ videtur Cassiod. lb. 8. Trspia-asvofxe^a. for 7re- 
pi<r(rsvo[/,<:v. lb. ii. + o before Xpia-Tos, ix. 9. ev to) vojxy 
ysyguTTTUi for ev yap tw jxajcrecoj vOjW-w yeyguTrrcti D E F G 
It. * * lb. 22. 'cravTug for 'uruvTcas Tivaj D E F G Vulg, 
It. Tert, Hier. Patr. Lat. Clem. lb. 27. xai SouAaywyai 



101 

TO <rcofji,x for to (rcofict xoti ZouXctyooyo). x. 4. tffsTpot h for ^ 
§)j 'STSTpoc. lb. = 6, lb. II. Si' y)]xaj for 'cr^Of voy^scriav ^jxwv. 
lb. 12. 6 (TTvixoov for ZoKoov so-Tavai In MSS. lb. I3. = 0f, 
lb. ai. xygioy rpwKs^Yis for rpuTrs^Yig xvpiov. lb. 3I. = ti. 
Ib. = 7ravTa. xi. 28. Ixafoj for av^pcoTros. lb. £(r3/sTa) ex tow 
apTov for 6;c tou aprou sa-^isToo. xii. 8. + T>3f, * * lb. 9. = Sff 
D E F G Vulg. It. Tert. Hilar. Ambrst. alii. Clem, 
lb. 9. aXAw for Irepa). lb. 26, (ryvSofa^sTai for (TvyKCiipei, 
** lb. 27. fisXovs for jocspouf D Vulg. clar. germ. Ambrst. 
Pel. Ambr. Aug. Beda. Cyril. lb. 3i.=Ta. xiii. 2. 
^KTTiv iroLO-ay for 'kolo'olv T)jv 7r»(rT<v. lb. {^.■=.yat.p, lb. lO. 
eav for orav. lb. 12. xuTOTTTpou for sa-orrTpov, lb. 12. ««- 
yiyfjLUTog for ev aiv/yjtJtaTi. xiv. 32.4-8?. xv. 25. £<»? for 
cixp^S' Ib.=7ravTaj. lb. =Touf before 7roSa$. lb. 28. yevyj- 
Ta< for >]. Ib. = xai auTO^ 0. lb. 35. e^si 8s for uX\* 
ipsi Ti§. lb. o» vsxpoi sysigovToii for syeipovTOLf oi Vcxpoi. lb. 
xat -TTOiw for TTotM h. lb. 38. yap for 8s. lb. 42.=t«;v. lb. 
50. dwuTcti for 8yvavTa«. lb. = xXy3povo/xa. 

2 Corinthians i. 5. = sij ^jxa?. Ib. = 8<a XpKrrov. ii. 7, 
fji.il'TroTs for fji^Yjircjo^, lb. l^. + sv TravT* totto) Hilar. Aug. 
saepe. lb. i6.=Ta; ^soo, Ib. = oo-|u,)j. iii. 6. + £<va/. lb, 
i^. = aura)y. lb. 16. + Toy before xupiov. lb. 18. + tou be- 
fore xupi». lb. + xoty. Ib. + e<j. iv. 4. cov for sv oij 6. lb. ov- 
Tcov for Tcuv. lb. xaTayyacrot/ for ayya(r«/ D E. lb. 6.=7rpoj, 
lb. 7.=Tov before ^rjcaupov. lb. Xa/x\[/>j ^ u7rsp/3oX>j T»)f 80- 
vuy,soog rov ^sov for ^ uTrsp^oXYi t>3j 8uvajU,sa;j ^ tou ^sou. xii. 
7. xoXa(pKr>j for xoAai^iJrj. xiii. 4. e/ yag for xm yap st, lb. 
ctTTS^ocvsv for eo-Taupw^yj. 

Galatians i. 4. cuTro for ex. ii. i9.4-'raj. lb. 20. = 8e. 
iv. I. jXYjOsv for eSey. lb. 16. vpi^iv for u/jtcov. lb. y/x-iv ctXri^svcov 
for aA>)^eua>v ujxjy. lb. 21. tov vofji^ov uvoiyivcoa'xovTs§ for vtto 
vofiov ^sXovTsg eivon. * * lb. avayivojo-xsTe for uxowsts B D E 
F G Vulg. It. Hier. Ambr. Ambrst. Beda. Cyr. lb. 23. 

«3 



102 

Kui for akXu, V. 8. = oyx D. Codd. Lat. ap. Hier. et Se- 
dul. clar. germ. lb. 2:2. X^P*^ £ip>)v>) ayuTrr} for ayaitri 
^apa s<p>3vi3. lb. 22. xapTro* for KOLpito^, vi. 8. xa< for 5g. 
lb. i4.=^jX£tfj/. lb. )} for a/xrj. lb. ^^^ttou \y^<tov for Itjo-ov 

Ephefians i. 21. Toyrw .rw ajcov* for to; aicovi royro;. ii. 3. 
8VSf>yQvvT0§ vuv for vuv evspyovvrog, lb. 7. XpYjaTorrjTog for 
y^upiTOc. lb. 20. ojxoSojU,>j.&=vrej for eTroixoSojavj^evrgs'. lb. ray 
before '7rpo<pYircov. Ib. + A*5ou D E F G Vulg. It. Tert. 
alii. Ib.=iauToy, lb. H-tou xuptou r^fjLcov. iii. 5. OTrsp for 6. 
• Ib. = gy TTvsvfjLocTi. iv. g.=:ijuspYj D E F G It. Tert. Lucif. 
Hilar. Ambrft. Hier. lb. 10. ovtos for uvTog, ** lb. 
l3. = oI before 7ravre$ D F G Clem. lb. +to before /xe- 
T^ov. Ib. + T)jf before ^Aix<aj. lb. 4-Toy (roofjuuTog Hilar, 
semel. lb. 14. = v>j'7rjOi. lb. ev tjj jxedoSeia for £v 'Truvovpynx. 
Tcpog TTjy ju-g^oSsiav. lb. g7r< rijv ^.v^sictv for £v tjj xv^siu. lb. 

TOU TTXoiVQVS for T)JV 7rA«V))f. lb. 27. TTOVYipcO foT dux^oXco. 

Philippians i. 23. xuXXiov avaXuo-at for ryjy gTridujOnay 
s^f^ f'? TO avaAuo-a*. Ib. = yoe^ D E F G Vulg. It. Aug. 

Pel. Cassiod. Beda. ii. ic-fx?*^"^®^' ^^^* ^^' '^i"'"^" ^"^^ 
^ju^a^y. 

Golossians i. 16. gxT<o-rai for sxTJcrdi}. lb. =Ta before 
opuTu and aopuru, lb. to; ou^avw for toij oupotvoig, Ib.=Ta 
before ^avra. Ib. = xa* after ogara. lb. 20. rctrs sv tt, yjj 
xoti TCI iV TOig ovpciVQis for are tcc stti rrjs yr^$ etrs roc sv toij ou- 
poivQis. * * Ib. = S/ oivTov D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. 
lb. = Toy o-raygoy. ii. 3. + x«{. ** Ib.=T>jf before yvoiosoos 
D. Clem, semel. lb. 8.=t«;v. lb. 14. =xa^' ^jxwy. lb. 
16. xpivsTM TIC ya«j for Tig viJiot; xpivsTM. lb. xa* for >j. lb. 
^i. ]u<»j twice for [XYjh Ambr. Aug. Ambrst. iii. 4. 6 be- 
fore Xpio-roj. Ib. + T>j. lb. 10 =ayTOv. lb. gvSyojxevoi for 
evSycra/jisvoi. iv. 6. onroKpivoKr^cn for u7roxpivs<T^cx.i, 

I Thessalonians ii. 7. gay for «y D E F in Wetstein. 



103 

G. lb. 14. h for yap, Ib.=aSeX(po/. lb. xat v^si^ sTtx^sTe 
for cTTo^rTs xcit vfjing. lb. 15. = I>jcroyy. lb. i6. ^ ogyij ew* 
uvTovs for stt' avTov$ yj ogyv}, iv. r5. = sv in MSS. lb. l5, 
-^Tou before ^sov. lb. uyyeKou for up^^^ocyysXov, v. 2?i 
= a7ro. lb. 23. Ty;^)jde<y^ ev rp — ^pitTTOu for^ev t»j — 'Kpio'TOtj 

3 Thessalonians ii. 3. avofxiug for ufiapTioig Tert. Ibj, 
-}-xa/. lb. 4. sTtaipoixsvog for t>7rega<^o^evoj F G. Ib. = As- 
yofjisvov, lb. S. + '^soj after xvgio;. lb. q. + tow before \[/£y^ 
^oy^ * * lb. I2. = ev D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. 

1 Timothy ii. i. + u/xaj. Ib.=7ravTa)v F G Boern. Ibi 
8. Toug ccv^ga; Trgoarsv^sa-^ai for Trpocreup^eo'^'ai rouj uv^pois D 
F G Vulg. in Wetstein. lb. oo-ius for 6cr<ou^. lb. diaXo" 
yiG-fj^m for hoLKoyi<TiJ.s FG multi MSS. Mt. 1. Boern. Hier, 
lb. 9.=rflf5 before yvvctixoi$ D F G. iii. i^, + <Te D Vulg. 
clar. Ambrst. lb. Kvpi8 for ^ea. lb. 6j for ^rij. * * iv. i, 
-nrXavyj? for 'srXocvois multi MSS. Vulg. Ambr. Pel. Clem. 
Ath. Cyril. lb. a. oijcstav for *5/av. Ib. + uyiouj. lb. 10. 
4-xaj. 

2 Timothy ii. 21. Tiju,>jj for si; ripuriv, iii. 16. owo-a for 
xa*. Ib. + ecTTj, iv. 4. aTroorgefpovrsj ayryjv for rrjv axor^v 

Titus iii. 3. = 7roTs. lb. uvor^roi uTrei^sis for aTrsj^eij avo- 
>3T0<. lb. =7rAav«;ju,£vo<. lb. +'ro^A«*? >ta*« lb. 5«+'roy. lb. 
=:uyiov, 245 Constant 199 

Inconstant 245 

444 

To these the following eleven should be added, 
which were accidentally omitted in the calculation. 

Constant, ** i Cor. ii. 27. kutukt^vvyi tsc aopng trans- 
posed D Vulg. clar. germ. Cyr. lb. 28. = tou xoo-- 
fwu. lb. 29. iva for ottmc. iii. 11. XpiG-jog Ikjo-okj for \r,(T(jv$ 

H4 



104 

X^/cTTo; D E Vulg. clar. germ. Patr. Lat. x. t. fjuoovs-riv 
for ju-cocDjy F G alii. Patr. xii. 6. xai for 6 h, 

Galatians * * iv. '26.r=cravTcov D E F G Vulg. It. 
Tert. Ambrst. alii. Isidor. Cyr. 

Colossians * iii. 5.=6^cyy Clem. 

Inconstant, i Corinthians ** xv. 4y. = xvpiog D E F 
G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. Isidor. ** lb. ^^, xev- 
rpov and viko$ transposed. Vulg. Tert. Hier. alii. Ath. 
Cyr. 

I Thessalonians * * ii. 7. VYiTrm for Yi-Trm D F G Vulg. 
It. Ambrst. Pel. Aug. alii. Clem. Cyr. 

The whole number of the Constant readings will 
then amount to 207, and of the Inconstant to 248 ; of 
both, to 455. 

N. B. A single asterisk * denotes a passage in 
which Origen agrees with one or more Alexandrine 
writers ; and two asterisks * * denote, when he agrees 
not only with one or two Alexandrine writers, but also 
with the Western text. 



Agreements of A with Origen, where the re- 
ceived Text reads alone, 

Romans * * i. 19. ^sog yap for 6 yap ^eog D E G 
Ath. * lb. 27 • oippsvs$ sv appecrt for otga^sve; sv otg(rs(ri 17, 
al. 6. Clem. Theod. ii. 8. opyri xai ^uixog for ^vfxos xa* ogyy^ 
D E G Vulg. It. Patres Lat. * lb. 14. ttoicoo-i for ttoiij 
47, 67, 73. al. 2. Mt. b. Clem. viii. 26,=:u7rsp Yjfjccov 
D F G clar. Boern. ** lb. 36. kvsxsv for kvsxa F G 
Clem. ix. II. <pctu\ov for xaxov. lb. vgo^sa-is ts ^ss for 
Ttf ds8 %po^i<Tig D E F G Vulg. It. lb. 1 9. + yap D E 
F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. lb. 33. =7r«jD E FG It. Patr. 



105 

Lat, xi. 22. a'TTOTOf/.itx. for a7roT0[Jnotv. xiii. 7' = »v D. Vulg* 
MS. tol. Cypr. Cassiod, Ruf. * * lb. 8. olKKy^Kh^ ayctituv 
for otyoLTOLv aWYikovg D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. 

* * lb. 9. = oy yl;suhfJLoigrupviG-si5 D E F G Vulg. MS. It, 
Clem. Cyr. Patr. Lat. lb. aeotvTov for suvrov D E alii. 

1 Corinthians i. 2.=Y,fj.cov Tert. Ambrst. Pelag. ii. 
I5.r=/x,sv D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. v. 7. stv^yi for e^ud^j 
D E F I multi MS. * * vi. 19. ra (rco^aroc. for to o-wj/x-a Pfeu- 
do Ath. Cyril. Vulg. Hier. Aug. Ambrst. **vii. 39.= 
vojaoj D. clar. germ. harl. tol. Vulg. Patr. Lat. Clem, 
viii. 5.=T)3f D E F G Cyr. ix. I. ovx, 6</x,i eXsv^sgog ', ovh 
sijxi wTTOs-oXog ; for ovx eifj^i wnog-oXog ; oux sifxi sXsv^spog flor. 
Vulg. Tert. Ambrst. Aug. Pel. Cassiod. Beda. Ib.= 
XpicTTov Vulg. MS. Ambrst. lb. 22.=co^ Vulg. clar. 
germ. Patr. Lat. xiv. 8. (TuK-niy^ (pcavYjv for ^covijv a-ixX%iy^ 
unnoticed by Griesbach in his notes to the New Test. 
lb. 38. uyvostToti( for uyvostrco D F G clar. germ. * * xv. 
6. ijTKstovsg for ^Xstovs D E F G Cyril. lb. 7. sTrsiTot 
for siTct F G. lb. 12. sv u/xiv Tives for tivs^ sv v^liv unno- 
ticed by Griesbach in his notes on the New Test. **Ib. 
2o. = £7£veT0 D E F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. lb. 21. 
= D. * * lb. 29. amuiv for tcov vsxpwv D E F G Vulg. It» 
Ambrst. Pel. Beda. Isidor. lb. 31. f^jxerspav for uft£- 

TSpotV, 

2 Corinthians iii. i^. + av after yivixu, 
Galatians i. 4. "Jtsgi for O'Ttep D E F G Boern. 
Ephesians ii. 20. Xgic-roo I>j<roy for Ivia-ou Xgi(TTOv un- 
noticed in New Teft. v. 14. systgs for eysipoj D E F G. 

* lb. 2^. = 6uvToov Clem, semel. Cyr. Chrys. 

Philippians ii. ji. s^ofji^oXoyric-sTai for s^ofLoXoyyio-riTOLi F 
G alii. iii. 10. (rvi/.iJiop<pi(^oiJi.svog for (ruju<ju,op<poy/jo£Voj D 175 
71, 6^, Two MSS. of Origen read o-ujx/Aop^iJojxsvoj, and 
two others cryja^o^i^oyjxsyof. 



106 

. I Thessaloniatis ii. i^. = ihov$ D E F G Vulg. It. 
Tert. Pel. Ambrst. iv. 13. ^sXo[jiev for ^sXco D E F G 
Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. lb. xoijxw/xevcov for xexo^jowojicsvcov. 

2 Thessalonians ii. 2, fxYjh for fXYjTi unnoticed in New- 
Test, lb. Kvpiou for ^gi<TTov D E F G Vulg. It. Patr. 
Lat. * * lb. 4. = coj ^sov D Vulg. clar. germ. Patr. Lat. 
Cyr. lb. 6. ocura for kctuT8. lb. io.=Tri$ F G yi, 73, 80. 

1 Timothy iii. ci, vYi(puKiov for vvjjpaXsov D alii. vi. ly, 
s^i for ev D F G alii. Ib. = Ta; ^oovri G alii Vulg. MS. 
harl. tol. Hier. lb. tsravra mXov(nuis for ■cxXoucricoj Tff^ocvTcc 
D E alii Vulg. clar. germ. Pel. 

2 Timothy iii. 12. ?>jv cucrs/Sco^ for suas^Mg ^>)v. ^^ 



Agreeinents of A with Origen, where Or'igen 
reads inconstantly^ agreeing both with A and 
with the received Text, 

Romans * * vii. 14. Is for yap D E Hil. Ruf. Ambr. 
Aug. semel Beda. Cyr. viii. 28. + -^so;. ix. 19. jw,o/ «v 
for ow /xo*. 

« 

. I Corinthians ** ii. ii. = av^pco7r«;v Ath. Cyr. Vigil, 
taps. * iv. 13. Su(r9>3|aouju,£vc»i for ^X(X(T<pYifx,ov(j,evoi Clem, 
Cyril. V. 4.=»Xpjo-Toy D Vulg. clar. Ambrst. Hilar. 
Aug. Ambr. Pel. lb. 5.=^]xajy F G Vulg. Boern. Sed. 
Ambr. Pel. Ambrst. Ih. + XgiaTov D E F G Vulg. 
It. Ambrst. Sed. Ambr. Pel. vii. 3> = ^s Vulg. MS. 
Cypr. alii. ** lb. ^g.=ctuTY}g Vulg. MS. Vig. taps. 
Cyr. * viii. 8. Trupaa-rrio-i for Tra^jcrryjo-j Clem. Ath. x. 4. 
=aoTO. * * lb. ii.=%civTu Cyr. Pacian. xii. 31. f/,si^ovot. 
for xpEiTTQvu, Vulg. Hier. xiii. io,=tots D F G Vulg. 
It. Ambrst. Aug. alii. xv. 25.=av D E F G MSS. 
alii. lb. + ayroy E Boern. harl. Tert. Vict. alii. lb. 38. 



w 

di'Baxriv etvTco for avTo) h'^ooo'iv unnoticed by Griesbach in 
New Test. 

2 Corinthians iil. i8. {ji£rci{jiop(pov[jt.svoi for iizraiuop^Qr^' 
fjti^oi unnoticed in New Test. iv. 6.=:lr}(rou Tert. 

Galatians i. 4. aicavo^ rs svsfcorog for t8 svss-cjoTog oncovos. 

Ephesians ii. 3. (puasi rstcvct for tsxvcc (pu(T£i D E F G 
Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. lb. 7. to v-TtspfSuXXov TrXourog for tov 
wrsplSocXovrci -TrXovrov D F G. * * vi. I2.=T0U oiioovo$ D F 
G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Clem. Ath. 

2 Thessalonians ii. 8. avsXst for uvuXcoara D F. Ibid. 
io. = £v D F G Vulg. It. Tert. Aug. Ambrst. alii. 
Ibid. 1 1 . 'crsjaTra for •ursfji.i/si D F G Vulg. MS. Ambrst. 
Ibid. 12. (XTTuvTsc for -sravrgj. • 

I Timothy ii. 9. xui for >3 before xpucria) D F G 
jclar. 29 • 



Agreements of A C with Origen^ where the re- 
ceived Text reads alone, 

* * Romans i. i6.=Toy y^pi(rrou A B C D E G 
Vulg. It. Cyr. Ibid. 2,4, — kui A B C 17, 31, 47, 75. 
Vulg. * * iii. 22. = xa* stti isuvtols ABC Codd. Lat, 
Aug. Clem. Cyr. * Ibid. 30. si-psp for sTrsiTrsp A C, 
Clem. Cyr. * * Ibid. 31. laTuvoiJisv for la-Tcofxsv A B C F 
(rTuvo[/.5v G Cyr. vi. i2. = auT>j sv A B C 4, 39, 47, 67, 
80. Vulg. Hier. Aug. &c. * * viii. 38. ovts svsa-Tooru ours 
jjisXXovTU OVTS hwocixsig for OUTS 8yva/xs<j ovts svsa-Toyra. ovts 
fj^sXXovTu A B C D E F G Boern. Hilar. Hier. Aug. 
Pel. Ambr. Fulg. Cyr. xi. 21. (psiasToti for (psta-YiTui A C 
D F G al. 45. Mt. a. al. 8. Chrys. Aug. Ruf. **xiv. 
9. = xa/ A C D E F G 17, 73, 74, 76. al. 9. Vulg. 
Boern. Cyr. Ibid. 2I.=>3 crKctvhuXi^sTui yj ao-^^^sva A C 67. 



108 

Orig. hue usque tan turn exeitans versum. Ruf. Aug. 
semel. 

* * I Corinthians i. 23. e^vecri for IXX>3<n A B C D E 
F G I 5, 10, 17, 23, 31, 37, 46, 71, 73, 80. Vulg. It. 
Patr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. •** ii. 2.=toy A B C D E F G 
5, 10, 37, 465 7I3 73, 74. These MSS. also have ov sx.piva. 
Ti siZevof, but Origen has sxgiva, /xrySsv aSsvo/. Cyr. Ibid. 3. 
xayw for xa* eyw A C 37, 39, 46, 71, 73, 74. Mt. (1. k. 
** Ibid. 7. ^£8 o-ocpiav for o-otpiav ^s« A B C D E F G 37, 
465 74, 80. Mt. k. f. 19. Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Clem. 
Cyr. **Ibid. j^.-uyiou AB CD FG 17,67, 71, 80. 
Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. * * iii. i. xayw for xa/ syoo A C D 
F G 17, 46, 73, 80. alii Mt. f. Clem. * * Ibid, a-otpxivoig for 
(ragxixoif AB C D 67, 71. Clem. **Ib.3. = xa/ S<;>^ofa(na/ 
A C 23, 46, 57, 71, 74. Vulg. Hier. Aug. Ambr. Clem. 
**vii. 3. OipaXifjv for OJ^aXo/xevy^v euvoiav A B C D E F G 6, 
17, 46, 67, 71. Vulg. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrst. caeterique 
Latini. Clem. **Ibid. 5.=t»j vrjcrraa xai A B C D E F 
G 9, 10, 17, 29, 46, 47, 67, 73. Vulg. It. Cypr. Ambrst. 
Pel. Hier. Aug. Ambr. Clem. Cyr. ** Ibid. <rxoAao->jT£ for 
(TxoAaJijTs A B C D E F G 39, 46, 73, 74, 80. Dion. Isid. 
**Ib. vjTs for avvsgx^a^s A B C D E F G Boern. Aug. 
Clem. Cyr. **Ib. y.,h for yap A C D F G 17, 23, 39, 
46. It. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Ambrst. Pel. Ambr. Aug. Cyr. 
* * Ibid. £p^a ^txpKTfxa, for ;^a/ji(rjxa s^si A B C D E F G 
It. Cypr. Clem. Cyr. ix. 8. r; xa/ 6 vofj,o§ tuvtu ov \syst 
for »3 ou;)^i voju^oj TctuTu ksyst A B C D E.46. Vulg. clar, 
Ambrst. Aug. ^ * Ibid. 10. o^aXa en eXTriSi for en eXnih 
o^aXaABC 17,31,37,46^ 80. Vulg. Aug. Pel. Beda.Cyr. 
** Ibid, stt' sXTTiSi T8 fxers^stv omitting the subsequent en 
sXtt/Si ABC Vulg. Pel. Beda. Aug. Cyr. ** Ibid. 16. yup 
for Ss A B C D E F G 6, 10, 17, 23, 39, 46, 71. Vulg. 
It. Hier. Ambrst. Aug. Ambr. alii. Cyr. * * Ibid. 21. 



109 

^sou for ^e«j A B C D E F G 7, ly, 26, 31, 37, 42, 46, 
6y, 73. Vulg. It. Ambrst. Hier. Aug. Pel. Cyr. Isid. lb. 
+ TOUJ before otvofjiovs A B C D 17, 71, 73. editio Coli- 
naei. * * x. i. yap for Se A B C D E F G 17, 39^ 46, 73, 
80. al. 6. Hilar. Clem. Cyr. * * Ibid. 11. tottikms 
forruTro* A B C F lo, 17, 33, 31, 46, 47, 57, 71, 73, 
80. In figura Vulg. It. Patres Latini. Cyr. * * Ibid. 
i3.=u^«j AB C D E F G I 17, 32, 46, 47, 52, 6y, 

73, 80. Vulg. It. Cyr. * Ibid. 32. xa* louSaioij yivso-^s 
for yivea-^i xcn louSaioij ABC 17, 37^ 73. Cyr. xii. 21* 
+ 6 before o^^uXfxo^ A C D E F G I 23, 46, 48, 72, 73, 

74, 80. al. 7. Mt. a. d. i. al. 6. * * xv. 49, <pops<rooijt,ev 
for <^ope<roixev A C D E F G I 28, 37, 39, 47, 48, 67, 
71, 72, 73, 80. al. 28. et Barb. 6. Mt. h. 19. al. 7. Vulg. 
It. Tert. Cypr. Hilar. Ambrst. Hier. Pel. caeterique La- 
tini. Cyr. 

2 Corinthians i. 7. cos for (oa-'Trsp A C D E 31, 64, 73. 

* Ibid. 12. dyioTYiTi for aTrXorijTi A B C 37, 64, 67, 73. 
Clem. * * ii. i6. + £x A C 10, 17, 31, ^y, 47, 80. 
Hilar. Clem. Cyr. * *iii. 9. rj) ^lotxovict for ^ 8«axov/a A 
C D F G 17, 3I5 39, 73, 74, 80. clar. germ. Rufin. Se- 
dul. Ambrst. Cyr. Ibid. 10. « for 8^£ A C D E F G 12, 
175 23, 31, 37, 46, 48, 72^ 73? 74- al. 25. Mt. a. al, 8. 
Hier. Aug. * * Ibid. 15. avayjvworxijrai for ctvuy ivoocrjcs- 
Ta« A C D E 17, 31, 37, 48. al. 7. Mt. b. n. 9. Cyr. 

* *■ iv. io. = xupoy A B C D F G 17, 18^ 31, 71, 80. 
Vulg. It. Tert. Ambrst. Aug. Cyr. 

Galatians ii. 14. x«/ ovx, lovdaiKoog ^^s for t^rjg xcn ouk 
lovldixuig A B C F G 37^ 73. 80. Mt. f. Boern. harl. 
Vulg. MS. Hier. Aug. Beda. Ibid, rroog for t< A B C 
D E F G 31, 37, 39, S7> 71. 73p ^o, Mt. f. Vulg. It. 
Patres Latini. 

* * Ephesians iii. 5.=£y A B C D E F G 17, S7i 73> 



110 

So. al. 41. pluresve. Mt. a. al. 10. Vulg. It. Hier. alii. 
Clem. * * Ibid. 6, = uvTorj A B C D 17, 73. Vulg. MS. 
clar. germ. Hier. Pel. Cyr. * * Ibid. 8.=t«;v A C D E 
F G alii multi. Mt. a. m. al. 10. Cyr. 

* Philippians i. 24. = sv A C 19, 45, 47, ^^, 61, Mt. 
c. k. Clem. Petr. Alex. Cyr. 

**Colossians iv. i. spuvwfor spavois A B C 19, 31, ^y, 
39, 57, 73. Mt. f. Edit. Colon. Fulg. unnoticed by 
Griesbach. Clem. 

2 Timothy iii. 6. ai^fxaXuiTi^ovreg for ui^fxotXooTsvovTeg 
A C D E F G 17, 31, 47, S7> 7U 72, 73' 74- al. 8. Mt. 
k. n. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. Ibid.=Ta A-C D E F G 
57) 71? 72) 73? 74) 80, 87. al, 11. pluresque. Mt. a. al. 
9. Chrys. Theophyl. 

Titus i. 5. u'KB'Ki'Kov for. kutsXittov A C D F G 17, 23, 
3i>45> 57^ <^7W3- Mt. a. 53. 



Agreements of A C with Origen^ where Origen 
reads inconstantly^ agreeing both with A C 
and with the received Texts, 

** Romans i. 21. riv^upis-yia-av for euxo^pig-ria-eiv A C D E 
17. Clem. Ath. Cyr. viii. 14. vloi ^eou zia-iv for e^(T^v v\oi 
^£tf A C D 39, 47, 80. Vulg. MS. clar. germ. Cassiod. 

I Corinthians i. 29. roy ^sou for uvtou A C D E F G I 

17) 235 ^1^ 39^ 4<^) 47) 48) 57) 6I) 72) 73^ 74) 80. al. 
41 . Mt. a, al. 1 1 . It. Chrys. Aug. * * Ibid. 30. <To^ia rjfiiv 
for y)fji,iv (ro(pici A C D E 37^ 46, 71. Vulg. MS. It. harl. 
Ambrst. Cyr. ^ a-o<piu yhxiv F G. **ii. 11. syvooxev for oihv 
A C D E 37, 39, 46, 7I5 74, 80. Vulg. It. Ambr. Hil. 
alii. Ath. Cyr. syvco F G. * * iii. 2. ehmo-^s for ijSu- 
»6c(r^s A B C F G^7j 46, 48, ^y, 72. Mt. b. Clem. 



Ill 

Cyr. ** Ibid.=:xa* A C 17, 23, 37, 39, 46, 73, 80. 
Mt. c. f. Vulg. Cypr. Hilar. Ambrst. Clem. Cyr. 
* * Ibid. 8^s for srs A B C D E F G 17, 39, 46, s7, 7 1^ 
73. Clem. Cyr. Ibid. 13. + auTo A C 37^ 39, 4.6, 6y, 
73, 80. Barb. i. Theodoret. * '^ v. 'j, = u7rsp yi'^wv A C 
D E F G 17, 46. Vulg. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrst, 
Hier. Clem. Ath. Cyr. * * ix. :?3. = t« A B C D F G 
Clem. ^*xii. 3. Iijo-oyj for I>3crouy A B C 5^ 17, 46* 
Vulg. Ambrst. Pel. Ambr. Victor. Aug. Sedul. Bed. 
Cyr. * * Ibid. xy^*o; lri<T8s for Kvpiov I)jo-«v A B C 6, 17, 
31, 46, 67^ 73. Vulg. Pel. Ambr. Aug. Beda. Cyr. 

a, Corinthians i. 5.+Toy A C D E F G 17, 37, 46, 
64, 71, 72, 74, 80. alii multi. Mt. a. al. 11. Chrys. iii. 
7.=gyAB C D FG 17, 67^ 73, 80. Boern. **iv. 4.=au- 
TOij A B C D F G 17, 23, 39, 73. It. harl. Vulg. MS. 
Aug. Vigil. Ambrst. Pel. Cyr. 

Galatians vi. i4.=Taj before xoo-jw-w A B C D F G 17. 
Hier. Aug. Ambrst. 

* * Ephesians iii. 14. =tou xypis rj^u^wv lyjo-y X^*(rT8 A B 
C 17, 67. Vulg. MS. Vigil. Aug. semel. Cassiod. Cyr. 

* * Colossians iii. 12. oiKripf/.8 for oixr/pjotwv A C D E F 

O i7y 3h 37 y A^y 47? b7y 7^, 73> ^o- al. 23. Mt, a. al. 
^. Clem. 19. 

Agreements of A with Origen 53 

■ — ' inconstant 29 

Agreements of A C with Origen 53 

' '-' inconstant 19 

Total agreements of A with Origen 154 



112 

Deviations of A alone, in opposition both to Ori- 
gen and the received Text, 

Romans i. 17. 5s for re. Ibid. 28. = 6 ^soj. ii. 5. av- 
TaTToSoo-ccoj for wTroKoiXu^satg. iii. 4. v/x>jo-eij for v«x>)(r*jj un- 
noticed by Griesbach. A D 29, 30, 32. Wetstein. lb. 
42. 6V 'KpKTTcti Ir)(rou for I)3crou Xg«(rTOu. Ibid. 25. = 8»a t>j; 
wicTTfooj. V. 13. eXXoyuTO for eXXoyeixo. Ibid. 15. + 0UV. Ibr 
17. 6v Ivi for Tw Tou evoj. Origen has ev hog. vii. 3. + ^ 
before yuvrj. Ibid. 2^.=tco vofjt,(o ra voo? fjiov. viii. 30. xai 
ouj for 06$ 8s. Ibid. Tposyvu) for Trpocopias, Ibid. 39. tow 
xvpiov for T«j xuptto, ix. J 6. eAfoovroj for «Xsouvtoj. Ibid. 
20. CO avd^coTTS fjLsvouvys for /tsvouvye ei> uv^pwnc. xi. 20. 
wv|/>jXa (ppovei for o\|/>)A.o^^ovfi. Ibid. 26. = xa(. xiii. I. utto 
for aTTO, Ibid.= gfowericti. Ibid.=TOo. Ibid. 9. + e(rTiy lb. 
12. ijyyKTsV for ijyyixev. Ibid, e^ya for bitXci, xiv. ]0. -^sou 
ior ^pi(T70\), xvi. 20. cvvrpi^on for <rvvTpt^st. Ibid, ev ra- 
p^ei WTTO Toyj TToSaj ^/iccv for utto rag Tro^ctg v^fLMV ev rcf/jEi. 

I Corinthians i. 27' = «va ^«^ <TO(pous xaTai(r;^uv>), xai ra 
a(r^ev>j tou xoc/tou e^sXefaxo 6 ^50j, ii. 9. ocra for «. Ibid. 
Jj. + Ta. iii. 7. = ot/T6. Ibid. 10. e^ijxa for Tsdeixa. iv. 2. 
«8ff for 68e. Ibid. ?»)T£/ts for JijTgiTaj. v. 8. lopTa^Ojxev for 
sopTot^ctifxsv, Ibid. >)XixpiViaj for etXixpivsiois. Ibid. II. jxr; 
for jxijSs. vi. 10. ou for oure. Ibid. = ou before xX)j^oyo/A>j- 
(Toua-i, Ibid. 15. fi/xcov for u/xa>v. vii. 12. Xgyco gyco for syco 
Xeyui, Ibid. 32. a^ecr*j for ageasi. Ibid. 39. aTro-^avyj for 
xo«]tt>j3ij. viii. 6. ujttiv for yi{jhv. Ibid. 8.=5yap. Ibid. + jtJt-'J 
before the first ^ctyooiji^ev, and subsequently omitted, x. 
3. TTveufj^otuxov s(puyov ^§ai[xoi. for ^pcti[ji,u TzvsviLunyiOv s<^ayov. 
Ibid. = auTo. xi. 5» >««' wacra for Tracra 8e. Ibid. 25, = 6(ra- 
xig av TTivriTs sig tjjv >jjx>]v uvotfjivr^(nv» xii. 26. = sv. xiii. 4. 
'TTspTTOpsusTui for 'TrspTTspsusTcii. XIV, 1^, 'ff§o(rsv^cti[jiui forTrpoo-- 
pujojxai. Ibid. 21. iTg^wv for erspois, xv. 5. STretTa fer 5*Tat 



113 

ibid. 19. SV p(pia-TCp YlX'TTUOTSg S(TIXSV (JiOVOV for -riKTTlTiOTSg £0"]a=y 

sy ^pKTTcp ij^ovov. Ibid. 2^.=^Tov. Ibid. 24. 7r«paS<§«; for 
TTupoi^cti. lb. 28.=Ta. Ih, ^J, + ot.hX<po I, lb. 36. a^pcov for 
uppov, lb. Icaoyovsnoj for ^MOTTOisiroif. lb. 38. =.to. lb. 51. 
= o«. Ibid. 5^« avacTTJjcrovTai for syep^i^a-ovTon. Ibid. 55. 
= 7r8 crou a&)j ro v<;iOc. 

!Z Corinthians i. 12. + ev. iii. 3. xotphotis for xapdiotg. 
Ibid. 9. = ey. iv, 4. Siauyao-a* for uvyacron. Ibid. 10. (pave- 
p«j^>3 ev TOO (Tctiu.ciTi Y}fji.oov for £V TM (yu)[jt.aTi Yjixcov !puvepco^Yi, 
xii. 7- =*v« /xrj xjivspcupwixoLi, Ibid. 9. TeAs<Ta» for tsXsiou- 
Tui. Ibid. ld. = sv Si«;y/x,o«f. 

Galatians ii. 9. = xa< x>](pa5. iii. 28. ej-s ^picrrov I»jcroy 
for S5"£ ^i' %§'r<? Ir)(r«. Ibid. aTTiStvrsj for Travrsc. Ibid.==aj. 
VI. 14. xaup^>)(rao-^a< tor xav^oKT^ai. 

Ephesians iv. 8. Y}^(/.<xKMTcv<rac for Yi^y,o(,KcoTsv(Tcv . Ibid. 
14. rac jxedoSeiaj for rtjv ju-s^oSciav. Ibid. 37. y^^^s for ]tJt>jTe. 
V. 31. T>5 yuvatxt for 'irgog rvjv yuvaixa, 

Philippians i. 29. rjjotjv for i/|a»v. ii i^.-\-hvcitji.sis. 
iii. 8- Ir^trou ^pKTTOv for -^pKyTOv Iyjo-qu. Ibid. 2i. = sjj 
TO y=V£(r3a» «uto. iv. 7. ^pKTTOu for deou. Ibid. I3.=p(^^i- 

(TTCO. 

Colossians ii. j^.=tov. Ibid. i8.=jay3. iii. 4. = cryv 
avTco. 

1 Thessalonians iv. 13. Xu7rejo-^s for XuTnjcr^s. 

2 Thessalonians ii. S. + lvi&ag. 

1 Timothy i. i. p^picrrou lyjo-ou for li^o-ow ^pi<rTOu, Ibid, 
=:xvpiou. ii. 9. = xai. Ibid. xaraTrAEyjU-acr/v for TrKEyfxacriv. 
Ibid. ^pv(Tiop for ^(^pucrw. . iv. 2. HsnaucrTyjpjacrjaeywv for Ksxctv- 
TYipia(r(j,5voov. v. 20. + §=. 

2 Timothy i. 10. ^pic-TGu Ivjcry for Iijcroy y^gKTTov. Ibid* 
16. STTaio-p^uv^rj for STryjO^p^uy^vj. Ibid. 17. (TTrovdonoTsgcos for 
(TTToySatOTEpov. iii. 6, + yion yi^qvoh^. Ibid. li. gygvovro for 
eysvero. iv. 7* xaXov cnyiavcx. for (xyoova. xoikov, 

I 



114 

Titus i. ^. £7ri8iop^a)(r>jf for sTn'^iop^Mo-r}, lb. 15. /itep«- 
l/,svoi$ for ixsi/.iu(ri/,svois, iii. 5. ro eXsoj for tov sXeov. lio 



The deviations of A C, in opposition both to Origen 
and the received text, have been already given in a 
note, pp. 385 39. Their amount is 30, which, added 
to the preceding no, makes 140, the total of the de- 
viations of A alone. 



Headings of the Boernerian Manuscript G, 
where A agrees with the received Text. 

Romans i. 16. stti suuyysKiov for to evciyyEXiov. Ibid. 
= £<j cra)T>3p»av. Ibid.rriTT^wTov. Ibid. 1 8. -|-t«;v before av- 
^pMTToov, Ibid. 19. oTi for ^ioti. lb. 20. bpara. for uoqccra.. 
Ibid. 21. aoLptioL auTciiv for uvtmv xotpliot. Ibid. 26.'\-^pY}(nv. 
ii. 8.=ftev. Ibid. 9. lAAijv* for IXA>}voj. Ibid. 14. rot e^vr} 
for e-&v)j. iii. %.-=-yot.p. Ibid. 19. Asyei for XolKzi, v. 8. 6 
deof e«j ^/xac for eij fijw-a^ 6 ^eoj. Ibid. £« er* for st*. Ibid. 
12. 6<j Tov xo(rju,ov ^ a/xapxia sicryjX'&cV for ^ a/xagria e<^ tov 
xoa-fjiov etcryjX'&ffv. Ibid. = 6 before ^ocvctTo§. Ibid. = 6 ^avaroj 
before SdjA^sv. Ibid. 14. [xoovasoo^ for ixooascos. Ibid. 15. 
= £V. vii. 3. ^pr,fjLccTKrsi fjiOt^uXi; for [jLOiyotKis ^pr)fJiciTt(rsi, 
Ibid. + auT>3f. Ibid. I5.=touto. viii. iy. = xKi^govoixoi [xsv 
^sou (TvyK}<Yipovo[xoi. Ibid. 19. <&£ou for tou ^sou. Ibid. 20. 
ou ^£\ov<ru for oux 6xou<ra. Ibid. 21. 5»ot< for ot/. Ibid.=^ 
before xxicn^. Ibid, 22. ccSivs* for crvvoolivsi. Ibid. 26. 
vpoasv^ofji^s^ci for irpoa-su^ooixs^u. Ibid. 32. 6j ouSe uloy i5<oy 
for 6(rye tou i5ioy olou oyx. Ibid. = Ta before ttuvtu. Ibid. 
35.+oyv. Ibid.=)) before S<wyju,of. Ibid. 37. tov ayuTrri' 



travTa for T8 ayaTDjo-avroj. Ibid. 38. ayyzXog for ayysAo*. 
Ibid. 39.=Ti?. ix. i. <Tm for sv. Ibid. 4. = ^ before ulo^s- 
(Tja. Ibid. 8.=T8 before ^zov. Ibid. 11. 15 for ju-rjSe. x. 8* 
sfiv TO p»j/Aa for ro pvj^a scrrtv. xi. 26. a7ro(7rp6\|/aj for aTro- 
orpe^t/a, xii. l4. = £uXoy£<r£ T8? dicoxovTotg vfji^ctg. Ibid. 19. 
avraTraSco for avraTraSwcrw. xiii. I . Tracatj s^Qu<rion; for Traca 
\|/y;^)j s^ova-iong. Ibid, a^ro for utto. xiv. 2. 6? for 6* Ibid. 
s(r^israi for £(7^<e». Ibid. 15. oiiroXXvEiv for aTrokXvs, xv. 
19. aTTo Ispouff-aXij/x /x-sp^p* rou IWupiMv xa» kvtcXco for aTro 

I Corinthians i. 2i.s±yap, Ibid, tw ^eo) for ^so^^ 
Ibid. 25* scTJv Tcov ctv^pooTrctiv for twv ocv^poiTraiv scrrtv. Ibid. 
6 for TO. Ibid, 26. ovv for yap. Ibid.=:ou ttqXKoi SyvaTOi* 
Ibid. 30. -f^ before (ro<pioi. ii. 2. j(^p<crTov lyjcoyy for I^jcroyy 
XpKTTov, Ibid. 3.= ev before <po^«;. Ibid.=:sv before Tpo- 
|w,a). Ibid. 4.=Xoyoic. Ibid. 53=>j before sv a-o^io.. Ibid, 

6. = 0u8£ TWV app^OVTOJV Toy CUCUVGS TtfT8. Ibid, II. Ta £V TO* 

dew for Ta T« ^£8. Ibid. 1 2. + T8T8. Ibid, I3. = a. Ibid. 
<ryyxp«vo/x£v for o-yyxp*vovTec. Ibid. i6. xupioy for ^pia-rotj, 
iii. i9.=Tw before <&sa>. iv. i. + t8 before dss. Ibid. 2* 
Tig TTKTTog for TTKTTog Tig, Ibid. 5. = 0^. Ibid, II. loj^ for 
u^piT^gk Ibid. I2. + xa<. V, 5, ayTOv for Tov TOioyrov. Ibid, 
8. fropvsioLg for TropvYipictg. vi. 3. ocrcra; fjiotXXov for ju-rjTi ys. 
vii. 2. Ttjv Tropvsioiv for Ta; Tropvsiug. Ibid, 7.+ Toy before 
'^£8. Ibid. 18. £xX>3d>3 T<j for T{j £xX>3'^>5. Ibid. 39. + xa«, 
Ibid, yajw^vjdij for y«ja>)-&>]ya<. Ibid. 40. s^oo for £xs<v, viii, 
5.+0I. Ibid. 6. dsoj for .^:oj. Ibid. I2. = xai. Ibid, 33. 
=lJ^ov, ix. 9. r]iJ,M<7sig for (p<jua;cr£ic. Ibid. H-7r£p». Ibid. 20. 
s=coj. Ibid. 23.4-Ss yap F G in Wetstein. x. 2. £v tij 
daA«o-(r»] xai £V ttj V£<^£X>5 for £V Tp vsi^eXii xai £V t>j daAacro-rj. 
Ibid. I2. = r) before wsTpa. Ibid. 13. xaTaAa^>] for sjAtji^sv, 
Ibid, «<p>](r£i for £a(r£j. Ibidl4-oy before Syvao-^s. Ibid, 
4-y^5V£yx£iv after the first ^woio-^s. Ibid, 20, ^cuimovK^v 

I % 



116 

icoivcjov8§ for >coivwv8§ Tcov lonii^Qvioiv, Ibid, sivai for yivicr^of. 
Ibid. 31. iroisiTe n for t< ttoisits. Ibid. = 7ro<e«TS. Ibid. 32. 
%ot(j-iv aoiTcx. tnoLVTx for -ara^ra 'u^txcnv. Ibid. -fro before tmv 
TToWcov. xi. 4.=T>j before xg(paA>). Ibid. I9. = £j/ Uja«v. xii. 
3. = AaX(a;v. Ibid. 25. ayid^hOLTa for <Tyj<T\Lai.. Ibid, ra aura 
for TO ayro. Ibid. 28. \Lz^i\Lyct for jXc^jjxvwo-i. Ibid. 27. (tw- 
ju-a £(rT= for e<rTg trcyjxa. xiii. I. ev aju,< ij yaXtLO^ for yeyovct 
^otXxog. Ibid. 2. fJis^icrrixvoLi for /xe^KTravav. Ibid, ra be- 
fore TTOCVTU. Ibid. 10. XOiTOCgyYj^YjOSTOLf TO £K jXS^tfJ for TO £X 

|W,sg8j xixTapyi^^YlTeTOLf. Ibid. II. Tcd Ttf v>j7rt« xaTrjpyyjxa for 
xaTYjpyrjxocTcc T8 VYi7ri8. Ibid. I3. = vuvi. xiv. I5.=:8e. Ibid. 
21. hepai^ y\ui(r(rai$ for sregoyXootraoig. Ibid. 8h7roo for wS' 
owTcoj. Ibid. ei(rocx8(rcTOLf for eia-a.K8(rovTcLf. Ibid. 32. 7rv=UjU,a 
for 'CTvsvy.uTcc, xv. 5* evSexa for ScoSexa. Ibid. 6.-=^xoif, 
Ibid, 8.=Ta;. Ibid, xa/ £ju,o< for xuf/^oi. Ibid. 12. ex vsxgoov 
on for oTi ex vsxpMv. Ibid. 20.+t«;v before nxpoov. Ibid. 
23.4-0* sATTKravTej. Ibid. 25. = auT«. Ibid. 27. + «yTaj. 
Ibid. '^6.-\-'GTpviT0v, Ibid. 40. = (rtt;jU.aTa. Ibid. 41. + 8e. 
Ibid. 5e for xot/. Ibid. 47* + 8gotviog, Ibid. 48. = xa/. 
Ibid. 8gotvtoi for 67r8guvioi, Ibid. 49. = x«/. Ibid. 50. yap 
for 5e. Ibid. = BuvayToe/. Ibid. 52. poTrrj for p<7r>j. Ibid. ^;^. 
for TO. Ibid. =THTo, Ibid. ^/^. = 6tixv h to <p^cx.pTov t8to 
gvSucrijTrt/ a^dapcnaVj xot/ to ^V)}Toy towto £v5i;cr>jT«/ «^av«- 

2 Corinthians i. 5- + '*'^** iii* 7* ^^ 7p«/X]aaT/ for ev ygccfj,- 
lUOLdiV, Ibid. rvTruifLiVYj for evTSTUTrajjuteyy). Ibid. p. + ecTTiv. 
Ibid. 15. xsiToii ETTi rrjv xapSiav ayrwv for e7r» ttjv xup^iotv 
avTwv xsto/. Ibid. 16. OTav for r^vixa. Ibid. 18. aTroTTTpi- 
|ojM.evo» for xa.TO'rrTpi^oi/.evoi, iv, 4. for 6j. Ibid. 5. xvpiov 
I>jo"oyv for ^^^^icttov Irjcroyv xvpiOv. Ibid. 6. = 6f. Ibid. ayTow 
for Tou deou. Ibid. 10. Ijjo-ou p^pio-Tou for T/jo-oy. xii. 9. a- 
TTsv for oprjxey. Ib.=/xou. xiii. 3. KukovvTog sv spLoi for ev 
Sjtco* KaK8VT0<i, Ibid. 4, = «. 



117 

Galatians i. 15. = o ^eo^. Ibid. 19. aSov oodsvu for ovx. 
sfSov. ii. 9. isTSTpog for x>3(paj. Ibid. 12. ex 'S7spiro[XYicrovTa$ 
for ex TTspiTOjxrjg. iii. 19. iir^a^aicov for "^jTixpot^ua-ewv. Ibid. 
I9.=p^a^<v. Ibid. 24. + l>/0"&y>'« iv. 6. sv co xpu^oixsv for 
Ttpu^ov. Ibid. 10. svi(xuT8g xolj xaipoug for xaj^ou; x«/ evtau- 
T8^. Ibid. II. exoTTiaxa for KsxoTtiotxu. Ibid. 27. jtcrj for 8. 
V. 6, = ovTc 7:sgno[xv) t» j(r;;^u£<. Ibid. 15. Saxvere xcq xaT- 
sa-^isre aAAjjAouc for aXX-^Kovg SaxvsTS xctf xarecr^iSTe. Ibid. 
avaAwdy^TS utt' ocXXriKcjov for utt' uWYjXctiv avaXw^yjre. Ibid. 
25. = xay. vi. 8. rifj cra^xi for s/f tijv (rocpKoc,^ Ibid, aura for 
koLUTou. Ibid. + «yT8. 

Epheslans ii. 2. + T«ro. Ibid. 2.=t8. iii. 5. ayre aTro- 
(TToXois for a.%Qa-TO\oig otuTOU. Ibid.=Ta;. Ibid. 8. eXa^KTTw 
for s\(x^K7roTepw, Ibid. 18. ti^'o? '^^ /Sa^oj for /Sa^oj xat 
o^/oj, iv. 8. + ev. Ibid. =Toif. Ibid. 14. H-t>j before Tra- 
voy^yia. Ibid. I9. coPyiXttikotss for onrYi\yy]xors$, Ibid, -sra- 
cr>3f axot^apcnag for ff,xa$5ap<7iixc -sjao-yjj. Ibid. 26. + 5s after 
o^yi^ecde. v. 8. ^uvi for vuv. Ibid. 31. xoXXyj-^yjcrsTa* for 
%po<rxoK\Yi^T^crsT(Xi, vi. 11. aj for ■ar^oj. Ibid. 12. v/xiv for 
yjjMJV. Ibid.=7rpoj rag, 

Philippians i. 23. ttoo-o; for jtxaAXo). ii.9. 4-aj. Ibid. 11. 
=z^pirrTog. iii. 14. a^ oe ra for to/^ Se. Ibid. 21. rov (rui^oL- 
T0§ for TOO (TMfLctTi. iv. 3. = xat after jaera. 

Colossians ii. I5. + t>5J' cra^xa. Ibid.=Taj a^xaj xot/. 
Ibid. 16. 13 veo[XYjVio<. >} (ru^^aTo^ for >) vsof^Yiviag rj (rci(S(3aTcov, 
Ibid. 17. 6 for a. iii. 4. 4-xa/ after (pavspM^Yj. Ibid. U|aa;v, 
for y|jW,coy. Ibid. 5* 'SJ'Asove^jav, •sra^oj, sTri^ufxiav for -nra^Of, 
i%i^v[xi(xv xoLXY^Vy xouf TT^v TrXsove^ixv, Ibid. 8, xaTa TravTa for 
ra TTavToc. lb. 10. + civrov, 

I Thessalonians i. i. <nXf3uvog for <nAouavoj. ii. 5. e«v 
av. Ibid. 14. otTTQ for utto. Ibid. 16. cr«;^yycroyT«i for (tco- 
^wo-iv. Ibid. =Tou ^sov, iv. i3. = oI before jtcvj s^ovrsg. 
Ibid. 14. 4-'5J-avT0T£ <7yv xy^ioj ecroju-eda. Ibid, x^xoifxr^ixsvov^ 

13 



118 

ior KoijjLYi^evTot^, Ibid. l7. = o» Trs^jXaTrojxsvoi. v. 14. vou^S" 

TEtV for VOU^cTSlTZ, Ibid. 14. ZS-UpU[J,l>^SiT£ foF 'GTOLDU^tM- 

2 Thessalonians ii. 2.=rov. Ibid. 4. sironpofjievo^ for 
vTTspatpofxzvo; in Wetstein. Ibid. 7. eo^? av for lajj. Ibid. 
10. e^s^s^ocvTO for e^e^avTO. Ibid. ll.==aur«j. 

I TiiiJOthy ii. 2. = ev. Ibid. 8. xa^ avSpa^ 'CT^oo-suygcr^a/ 
for 'UTfO(rsvx^<^^oii tovs avlgu;. iii. 2. Ss for «v. Ibid. 12. 
4-85. V. io. + 8e. Ibid. 17. =tuj before 3e«;. 

Titus iii. ^.■+hix. Ibid. 10. /x,:t« nt>av vadso-iav xa/ Sey- 
Te/3av for /xsra jotiav xot/ Scurepav V8^s(nxv, 234 

To these must be added the following 46 passages 
already given in the readings of Origen alone. 

Constant. Romans i. 27. viii. 11. x. 8. xiii. 9. Ibid. 
12. xiv. 9. I Cor. vii. 32. xii. ii. xv. 12. Ibid. 28. 
2 Cor. xii. 9. Galat. iii. 19. v. 19. Ibid. 25. Coloss. i. 
34. ii. 14. I Thess. ii. 14. iv. 13. i Tim. ii. 9. vi. 8. 
2 Tim. iv. 2. 

Inconstant. Romans ii. 14. Ibid. viii. 13. xiii. 9. 
Ibid. I Cor. i. 26. Ibid. 30. ii.4. iii. 3. ix. 9. Ibid. 22. 
x. 4. xii. 9. Galat. iy. 21. Ephes. ii. 20. iv. 9. Ibid. 13, 
Philip, i. 23. 1 Thess. ii. 7. 2 Thess. ii. 4. Ibid. 12. 
I Tim. ii. i. Ibid. 8. Ibid. Ibid. 9. 

The whole number will then amount to 280. 



Agreements of A with G, where the received 

Text reads alone, 

N. B. In passages, in which A and Origen have the 
same readings, reference is only made to the chapter 
and verse. 

Romans i. i5. Ibid. 19. ii. 8. iii. 4. v<x)j(r*3j for vix)j- 



119 

<ra^. V. 17. ev svi for too rov hoc. vii. 14. (Tapinvog for cra^- 
3nx.o§. viii. 26. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. rs xvpis 
for Tw xvpKJp. ix. 16. eAsjovTOf for eXXsovvrog. Ibid. II. 
Ibid. 19. Ibid. 33. xi. 31. Ibid. 26. xiii. i . = ef ouo-io/. 
Ibid. i.=T« before ^58. Ibid. 8, Ibid. 9. xiv. 9. Ibid. 

10. -S^Si? for %piO-T8. 

1 Corinthians i. 23. Ibid. 27. = Jva ra? (ro(p«^ xar- 
atjtrp^^uyyj xcxy ra a^svyj rs xo(Tij,8 s^sXs^otTO 6 ^=05. Ibid. 28. 
= xa/- Ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. ii. 2. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 
15. Ibid. + Ta. iii. i. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 2. iv. 2. co h for 6 
Sg. Ibid. 2. ^>)TaT= for ^yjra-ro/. Ibid. 9. = on. v. 7. Ibid. 
7. vii. 3. Ibid. 5. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 7. Ibid. Ibid. 
6 fxev for og jxsv and 6 8s for 6g h. Ibid. 32. apscr>] for agg- 
ers, viii. 5. ix. 16. Ibid. svuyyiXKTooixcLj for suotyysXi^Mfxcq, 
Ibid. 20. +jw.»j oov uvTos v-jTO vo^ixiv. Ibid. 21. Ibid. Ksphuvca 
for Ksp^^a-oi. Ibid. 22. x. l. Ibid. 2. s^aitTio-^i^G-ocv for 
e^aTTT^cravTo. Ibid. 13. xi. 5* ayn^j for lauT>)^. xii. 5. 
= £$•*. Ibid. 21. xiii. 10. xiv. 15. Trpocreufwjxo/ for Trpoasv' 
^ofxoLi, Ibid. 38. XV. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 19. sv %^icrT«3 )jX- 

TTiXOTcJ cCTjtAsV for >]X7r<X0TeJ eCTjOOgV £V ^piTTCO, Ibid. 20. Ibid. 

25. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 36. ajp^wv for cc(pgov. Ibid. 38.=to. 
Ibid. 49. Ibid. 51^* c<,va.fri<70VToLi for sysp^ria-ovTcq, 

2 Corinthians i. 5. iii. 3. xctplion^ for xapdiotg. Ibid. 7. 
Ibid. 9. iv. 4. xii. 7. = 4W jw,>j uTtzpaipviy^oui, Ibid. 9. xgAa- 
TO/ for rsXsi8T0Lj, 

Galatians i. 4. ii. 14. Ibid. iii. lo + or*. iv. 24. + a/. 
vi. 14. 

Ephesians ii. 3. Ibid. 7. iii. 5* Ibid. 8. iv. 8. = x«/, 
lb. 27. jw-^jSs for ju,)5T6. v. 14. lb. 31. T>3 yuvaixi for -sr^oj 
T>;v yuvaixa. vi. 12. 

. Philippians ii. 5. ^govetre for fpovsi^a). Ibid. 11. iii. 21. 
z=eig TO yzVs^oLf uuto. 

Colossians iii. 12. 

14 



120 

1 Thessalonlans ii. 15. iv. 13. Ibid. Ku7rci(r$rs for 

2 Thessalonlans ii. 2. Ibid. Ibid. 8. + I>j(r8j. Ibid. 10. 
Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. 

• 1 Timothy i. i, = x,vf>i8. Ibid. %/5<crT8 Iyjo-b for \ricr8 
^qidTS, ii. 9. Ibid. p(^j5i;(r<tt; for p^pucroj. vi. I7« Ibid. 

2 Timothy ii. 2i. = x«y. iii. 6. Ibid. iv. 7. ^caKov ayo;- 
va for otyoivot, kuKov. 

• Titus i. 5. Ibid. 15. [/,sy.iuix,iJ,=vo^ for i^bij^icktilzVo^, iii. 5* 
TO eAeo$ for tov eXsov. 123, 



Deviations of X alone, in opposition both to G, 

and the received Text. 

N. B. In passages, which are above given under the 
deviations of A, or of A C alone, in opposition both to 
Origen, and the received text, reference is only made, 
as in the preceding instance, to the chapter and verse. 

Romans i, 17. Ibid. 24. = 3c«/ A C. Ibid. 27. apgsvsg 
61/ appea-i for ccgasves sv uparsdiv A. Ibid. 28. ii. 5* Ibid. 
14. TTOJoio-i for 7roij5 A. iii. 22. Ibid. 22. = koli ztti ^ravraj 
A C. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 30. siirsp for sTrsiTrsg A C. Ibid. 
31. l<jTavo[/,sv for iVrccjagv A C. v. 13. Ibid. 15. vi, 12. 
?=auT>3 A G. vii. 3. Ibid. 14. h for y«^ A inconstant. 
Ibid. 23. viii. 14. vloi ^s8 si<riv for sicnv vloi ^s8» In G vioi 
si<Tiv dc8 A C inconstant. Ibid. 28.4-6 -^soj A in. Ibid. 
30. Ibid. ix. II. (pavXoy for xukov A. Ibid. 19. [/,oi &v 
for «v /Aoi A in. Ibid. 20. In G=/x,ey8vye. xi. 20. Ibid. 
21. Ibid. 22. Ihid. c/MOToixiu for wTTOTOfxiuv A. xiii.i. Ibid. 
7. = «v A. lb. 9. G-cuuTov for kuuTov A. lb. lb. 12. lb. 
xiv. 2I.=>) (^TioLvluKilsTajj )j ac^evs* A C. xvi. 20. Ibid, 



121 

1 Corinthians i. 2. = ^ju,«;y A. Ibid. 20. ii. 3. xayw for 
syoi AC. lb. 9. Ih. J I. = oiv^poo7roov A in. lb. syvcoxsv for 
oihv A C in. Ibid. 15. iii. l. (ruffxivois for capxixoij A C, 
Ibid. 2. = xa/ A C in. Ibid, ^^. = >£ot/ '^ixoTTcctna^ A C. 
Ibid. 7. iv. 13, Sya (^Tja^ftsvoi for /SXacr^prj^aajtcsvoi A in. 
Ibid. 21-. V. 4. =o^^<c7-T^ A in. Ibid, ^j.rzi^/xwv A in. 
Ibid. 8. Ibid. Ibid. 11. vi. 15. Ibid. 19. ra (ra;a«T« for 
TO (Tw^a A. vii. 3. = 8£ A in. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 
= vo/;t«; A. Ibid. = ayr)5j A in. viii. 6. Ibid. 8. Ttxpufrjcrt 
for '57«j5if>3crt A in. Ibid. Tbid. ix. l. 8;c ajtjtj aTrog-oAo^ ; 
8x sjjTx* cAsu^s'poj ; transposed A. ]hid.=^gis'ov A. Ibid, 
8. >j x«^ 6 voj^cf TixvToi Ksysi for >j oup(^» 6 vojaoj raura Asya 

A C. Ibid. 10. 0(^SiXsi STT 6>y.7ridl for 67r' gATTiSi 0(^SlK£i A C, 

Ibid. OT sXTTidi m [JLSTs^siV for rvj^ gA^riSoc aurov {xste^siv A 
C. Ibid. zi. + T8§ before avoy.8^ A C. Ibid. 22.=coj A. 
X. 3. Ibid. Ibid. 4. = au'ro A in. Ibid. 4. -srvcUjU.aTtxov 
ETTiov 7rO|U,a for Trojxa 'jTvsvfx.otTiKov STTiov A C in. Ibid. II. 
= 7ravra A in. Ibid, tvttixcc^ for tutto* A C. Ibid. 33. 
xot/ Isduioig yiv=<r^s for yiVccrds xoc/ lou'^oLioig A C. Ibid. 33. 
xi. 5. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 29. xii. 3. I)jg-«j for Ivjcrav A C. 
Ibid.^ xugtog Ir^a-^g for >cvptovlYi<T8v A C. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 26. 
xiii. 4. Ibid. 8. xiv. 8. craATriy^ (poj^>jv for (povYiv (raA7r*yf A. 
Ibid. 21. XV. 5. Ibid. 12. sv vixiv rivsg for t<vs^ ev u/xiv A. 
Ibid. 21. = 6 A. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24, Ibid. 28. Ibid. 
31. Y)[jisTspotv for v[xsTspotv A. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 
38. SiSwo-iv aurw for uuTcp SiScocnv A in. Ibid. ^1. Ibid. 
54, Ibid. 55. 

2 Corinthians i. 7. w^ for wa-Trsp A C. Ibid. 12. dyio- 
TYjTi for aTrAoryjri A C. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 12. ii. 2. Ibid. 
i6. + sxAC. iii. 9. lb. 10. 8 for «§£ A C. lb. i5. + av 
A. lb. 15. avotyivooa-Kfircn for avcxyivuiO-xsTS A C. lb. 18. 
lxsTct[j.og!pou[xsvoi for ixsrot.ixop'pQvixs^a A in. iv. 4. Ibid. 6. 
= I)3<roy A in. Ibid. 10, = xvgiQv A C, Ibid. 10. xii. 10, 



122 

Galatians i. 4. cuoovo^ tov svea-Tcorog for rou evearMTog aioa- 
vogAin. ii. 9. Ibid. 9. iii. 28. Ibid. Ibid. a8. iv. 23. 
V. 19. vi. 14. 

Ephesians ii, 20. ^piarov Irjcrou for Ijjctou ^gia-rov A. 
iii. 6. = uvTov A C. Ibid. Ibid 14. =tou xvpiov ijjxcov I»jo-« 
X^icrroy A C in. iv. 8. Ibid. 14. Ibid. v. 2^. = kuvTMv A. 

Philippians i. 24, = cv A C. Ibid. 29. ii. 9. Ibid. 13. 
111. 8. Ibid. 10. o-Uja/Aop^j^o^svo* for o-y/x/xop<poujxsvo» A. iv. 
7, Ibid. 13. 

Colossians ii. 14. Ibid. 18. iii. 4. iv. i. oupuvw for ou- 
^avoij A C. 

1 Thessalonians iv. 13. xotfjicufx^svoov for xsxo</xyjju,gva;y A. 
Ibid. In A it is Xu7rgio-^e^ in G kv-rrsia-^cii, 

2 Thessalonians ii. 4.=co^ ^sov A. Ibid. 6. uvtov for 
lauToo A. Ibid. 8. ctvotXsi for uvuXcoo-ei A in. 

1 Timothy ii. 9. Ibid. 9. iii. 2. v>j(paXjov for vv^tpuXeov 
A. G has Vc(p«X«<ov. iv. 2. v. 20. vi. 17. iravra TrXouciso; 
for "TrXoua-ioog ttccvtu A. In G = 7ravTa. 

2 Timothy i. 10. Ibid. 16. In G xarajcrp^uy^r). Ibid. 
17. In G a-TTOidotwg, iii. 6. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. ^»)v su<rs^a)g 
for svasSoos ^y)V A. 

Titus i. 5. In G S/opSwcrr^f. iii. 5. 169. 



In the preceding extracts from the Boerne- 
rian MS. many readings will occur not to be 
found in Griesbach. I have already observed, 
p. 41. that more than ninety omissions are dis- 
coverable even in the limited portion of St» 
Paul's Epistles under consideration. He pro- 



123 

bably contented himself with the references of 
Wetstein without revision or augmentation, al- 
though the manuscript had been previously 
edited by Matthsei. The numerous errors in- 
deed of Wetstein, in references to the MS. A, he 
seems to have carefully corrected : but Woide, 
in his publication of that MS. had given a 
separate collection of all its readings under 
the regular arrangement of chapter and verse, 
in which Wetstein's notices were marked, and 
the word male in italics affixed to every inaccu- 
racy. Matthaei did not take the same trouble 
with the Boernerian ; and Griesbach's avoca^ 
tions, it is to be presumed, prevented him from 
accomplishing the task himself. The deficiency 
however is here supphed in a part, at least, of 
St. Paul's Epistles. 

In order to form an exact parallel to the com- 
parison of A with Origen, as an exemplar of 
the Alexandrine text, I have thus subjoined a 
comparison of A with the Boernerian manu- 
script, as an exemplar of the Western : but I 
am, nevertheless, far from considering either 
comparison as complete, either in its principle 



124 

or application ; nor do I think that absolute 
conviction is attainable with our present defec- 
tive and undigested materials of investigation. 

I have remarked, that the very existence of 
the Alexandrine text is at best out problemati- 
cal ; and so, I apprehend, it must continue to 
be, until the contrary position be proved by a 
characteristical collection of Alexandrine read- 
ings, contradistinguished from those, not only 
of the Byzantine, but also of the Western, text. 
When Griesbach undertook the arduous task of 
preparing a critical edition, and even a corrected 
text, of the New Testament upon a novel hypo- 
thesis, he ought surely to have placed its accu- 
racy beyond the possibility of objection, before 
he attempted its reduction to practice as an un- 
erring rule of textual criticism; not to have pro- 
ceeded upon the bare probability of conjecture, 
but to have previously grounded himself upon 
sure demonstration. The Alexandrine text con- 
stitutes the main pin, which holds together the 
complicated machinery of his system. This 
therefore he should have first incontrovertibly 
established ; but the position still remains ex- 



125 

posed to many great and serious objections. 
When undertaking to confirm it, what is the 
species of proof which he addu*ces ? He appeals 
not to the joint readings of Alexandrine writ- 
ers characteristically distinguished, but princi- 
pally to the joint readings of A and C, in con- 
junction with those of Origen. Matthaei had 
denied the existence both of an Alexandrine 
and a Western text. The former Griesbach 
attempts to prove by a comparison and from a 
calculation which has been sufficiently detailed ; 
and then subjoins the following result : " Quse 
"cum ita se habeant, extra ornnern duhitatlonis 
'' aleam positum esse videtur ; — ^Lectiones, quas 
" A et C unanimi consensu exhibent, jz/r^ meri" 
*^ toque Alexandi'ims et vetustis (donee contra- 
'^ rium probetur)«ccf?^^^r^^" And again, "Codex 
" C: Descriptionem ejus dedimus, tom. i. p. 3. 
" Ibidem etiam p. 133. disputavimus de indole 
" textus ejus in Epistolis Paullinis, atque osten- 
" dim us, mirifice consentire hunc librum cum 
*^ Origine et codice A, adeoque eum exhibere 

* Symbolae Criticaej vol. i. pp. 137^ 138. 



126 



cc 



vere Alexandrinam recensionem, ab Occiden- 
" tali omnino diversam ^"* 

Convincing, however, as this supposed won- 
derful coincidence may have appeared to him, 
when we recollect that the reality of an Alexan- 
drine text is the point to he proved and not 
to he presupposed^ v^Q^ shall have reason to sus- 
pect, and even more than to suspect, the accu- 
racy of his conclusion. He enumerates seventy-- 
five joint readings of A and C common to Ori- 
gen : I have myself been able to collect only 
seventy-two % which I have already given sepa- 
rately, with the principal references to other 

^ Symbolae Criticse, vol. ii. p. 31. 

*^ It is possible that I may have overlooked three instances 
of agreement observed by Griesbach, but I do not think it 
probable. I have however observed three instances of agree- 
ment incorrectly marked by him in his notes to the New 
Testament. The first is Galatians vi. 15. zcrriv for i<ry^vEi A 
B C D E F G Or. but Origen has no such verse. The second 
is Philippians ii. 9.-f ro A B C 17. Or. but no addition of 
the kind occurs in the Symbolae Criticae. The thinl is Titus 
i. 15. = |U,£y A C D E F G Orig.\\ya,p Syr. Or. Here is a dou- 
ble reference j but the last is the true one, as y(x,p is substi- 
tuted for y^sy, so that the first must be deemed incorr*;ct 5 
nor is the verse quoted more than once by Origen. 



127 

manuscripts and Fathers annexed. From a par- 
ticular inspection of these it will appear, that, 
out of the whole number of seventy-two, there 
are not more than seven readino;s which do not 
coincide as well with the Latin versions, or 
sotne Western manuscript (viz. D E F G) or 
writer, as with A, C, and Origen. The seven 
exceptions are Romans iii. 30. I Cor. ii. 3. iii. 
13. X. 32. xii. 3. 2 Cor. i. 12. Philip, i. 24. Of 
these the first occurs in Clemens and Cyrill, 
the second and third in no Alexandrine Father 
whatsoever except Origen, the fourth in only 
Cyrill, the fifth in only Cyrill occasionally ^ the 
sixth in Clemens only, and the seventh in both 
Clemens and Cyrill in conjunction with Byzan- 
tine MSS. and Chrysostom. While such is the 
character of the seven readings which do not 
coincide with the Western text, the sixty-five 
others, which do coincide with it, will be found 
generally in alliance not with one version, ma- 
nuscript, or Father only^ but with more, and 
frequently with versions^ manuscripts, and Fa- 
thers united. 

From these premises, it seems not very diffi- 



128 

cult to draw a satisfactory result, but it is one 
diametrically opposite to that of Griesbach. In- 
stead of contemplating a great majority of the 
readings as peculiarly Alexandrine, because they 
are found in the manuscripts A and C in con- 
junction always with Origen, and somctirrfbs 
with one or two more Fathers of the same de- 
scription, (which by the way is also improperly 
representing the classification of A and C, not, 
as in truth it is, the final object, but the legiti- 
mate means of investigation,) should we not 
rather contend, that they are more probably 
Western ? They are certainly common to both 
classes, and seem likely to have been adopted 
by one of them from the other : but as the ex- 
istence of an Alexandrine class has not been 
proved, and as the stream of evidence is far 
greater on the side of the Western, it appears^ 
I apprehend, not unreasonable to conclude, that 
the latter exhibits the original, and the former 
the adopted, readings. The respect paid to the 
Western text was always considerable, and the 
sphere of its action extensive ; rather therefore 
should we conceive, that, instead of gravitating 



129 

towards another, it attracted every thing within 
its influence towards its own centre. If A and 
C as well as Origen on most occasions coincide 
with the Western text^ why are their individual 
coincidences in any number of instances to be 
considered as almost miraeiilous ? Is it not bet- 
ter to subtract the miracle, and to say, that it 
is usual for those things, which generally parti- 
cipate in a common resemblance, to be found 
particularly conformable with each other ? 

But it may justly be remarked, that, in order 
to ascertain the true character of the readings of 
Origen, the whole of them together, and not a 
partial selection, should be examined. With 
this impression, I have given all which a dili- 
gent investigation enabled me to discover, in 
the Epistles of St. Paul, and have noted those 
vi^hich ao^ree with other Alexandrine authorities, 
or with the Western, or with both. The total 
amount of his readings is six hundred and nine^ 
out of which there are two hundred and jtwenty- 
six, which coincide with either Western or 
Alexandrine authority, or with both. Of the 
remainder^ many indeed, not unfrequently ac- 

K 



130 

<iord with the Byzantine^ but many more are 
perfectly insulated. The number however of 
the latter may doubtless be very considerably 
reduced, by making due allowances for the free- 
dom of quotation, and for the errors of tran- 
scription. And perhaps a still farther reduction, 
if not an almost entire annihilation, might be 
effected by our acquisition of completer colla- 
tions of Fathers, manuscripts, and versions, than 
we at present possess. How numerous the col- 
lateral readings of this kind are, with which we 
are yet unacquainted, may be conjectured from 
the many additions not long since made by 
Matthaei to those of Chrysostom alone ; and 
even by the very quotations of Origen under 
consideration, of no contemptible part of which 
we were altogether ignorant, until they were 
brought to light by the laborious scrutiny of 
Griesbach. But, notwithstanding the great ^m 
amount of this incongruous remainder, there 
are found a sufficient number of congruous read- 
ings for the purpose at least of a comparative 
examination. 

There occur two hundred and twenty six y which 



131 

coincide with one or both of the classes al- 
luded to. Of these^ one hundred and eighteen 
are supported by Western authority alone, nine- 
ty by both Western and Alexandrine united, 
and only eighteen by Alexandrine alone. Sup- 
posing the existence of an Alexandrine text, we 
may presume, that Origen would frequently 
have associates of that description in peculiar 
readings ; but this presumption is far from be- 
ing warranted by fact. For in truth, the very 
reverse takes place ; as, out of tivo hundred and 
tiverity-six readings, Origen has but eighteen 
distinguishable from the Western text, in which 
he is joined by any other Alexandrine Father. 
Nor even in this limited number of eighteeny 
does he read in conjunction with more th^n 
one Alexandrine, (sometimes with Clemens, and 
sometimes with Cyrill,) except in the following 
five instances ; Rom. iii. 30. 1 Cor. iv, 13. viii, 8. 
Ephes. V. 25. Philip, i, 24. in which he receives 
a double support. On the other hand, his al- 
liance with Western authority, in exclusion of 
the Alexandrine, is so intimate, that he reads 
with that alone, not eighteen^ but one hundred 

K 2 



132 

and eighteen times^ a full moiety of the whole 
amount. Neither does he here often read with 
one or two, but generally (the source indeed 
being more prolific) with numerous associates. 
The conclusion deducible from this general state- 
ment seems obvious. 

That Origen should occasionally depart from 
a text, with which he usually accords, cannot 
be deemed remarkable. It is precisely the case 
with other writers, confessedly participating in 
the peculiarities of the Western, or of the By- 
zantine. An exemplar, indeed, of neither text 
exists in its original purity ; for the current of 
each has become turbid from the soil over 
which it has passed, during the lapse of so 
many centuries, and not unfrequently has their 
devious streams been united. Chrysostom some- 
times departs from the received text, in con- 
junction with other Fathers of a similar de- 
scription ; but will any one on that account 
maintain, that the writings of Chrysostom af- 
ford a new classification ? Accidental varieties 
necessarily occur ; but the species still remains 
distinct and appropriate. 



133 

If country is to be esteemed the true cri- 
terion of classification, and the existence of 
separate texts in every considerable district to 
be presumed, I see no reason, why the number 
should not be augmented; why Syria, for instance, 
and Asia Minor, should not have their separate 
texts, as well as Byzantium, Rome, and Egypt. 
Cappadocia alone produced three writers of dis- 
tinguished character and credit, Basil with Gre- 
gory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa ^ ; and 

^ If these writers really followed a text different from 
that which has been denominated the Byzantine, it is evi-^ 
dent, that they cannot be properly taken into the computa- 
tion of Byzantine authority. So also, if Eusebius and Da- 
mascenus, one of Caesarea, the other of Damascus, be con- 
sidered as adherents to the text of their own country, viz. 
the Syrian, and not, as Griesbach supposes, to the Alexan- 
drine, their testimony cannot be correctly classed under the 
latter text, and, if so classed, can only lead to a fallacious 
result. Griesbach, it is true, represents Eusebius as an ad- 
mirer of the reasoning, and therefore a copier of the quota- 
tions, of Origen 3 but admitting his premises, I cannot sub- 
scribe to the legitimacy of his conclusion. Nor even, ad- 
mitting both, should 1 be warranted in ranking Eusebius on 
the Alexandrian side in my calculation of testimonies -, for 
my argument applies not to writers, who repeat, but to those, 
who corroborate, the evidence of Origen. 



134 

these have not only common, but pecuHar read^ 
ings : why do we not form another text from 
their quotations ? Basil, it is true, travelled to 
Egypt, but so did Origen to Rome ; yet the 
latter is regarded as having been still attached 
to the characteristical text (if such there were) 
of his own country. Ought we not then, if the 
principle be at all admissible, to assert the same 
also of the former? 

But, in truth, the existence of even three 
texts has never been proved analytically. Trans- 
ported with the love of synthetical combina- 
tion, and with the pride of conjectural talent, 
we may give loose to unbridled Criticism, and 
pursue a favourite track, disdainful of the 
rugged path, and the terrific precipice ; and 
may astonish the world with intricacy of re- 
search, and with boldness of enterprize : but 
the credit of our discoveries will scarcely be per- 
manent, unless the road, which leads to them^ 
be secure and certain. Synthetical reasoning, 
how speciously soever it may dogmatize, sel- 
dom convinces, being too often founded upon 
the unstable basis of mere gratuitous pre- 



135 

sumption. Instead of pointing out the deduc- 
tions of incontrovertible truth^ it not unfre- 
quently indicates consequences deducible only 
from preconceived error. It is by analysis alone, 
that we arrive at satisfactory conclusions ; and, 
when the hypothesis of an extended classifica- 
tion in manuscripts is, not synthetically pre- 
sumed, but analytically demonstrated, I shall 
myself be the first to adopt, and the last to re» 
linquish it. 



' THE END, 



A 



I* 

o 






N 



4- 



8 I 






0^ c«^ 



" V- 









"^^ 



'-^ 



,V 



V I « 



^0 



A 



^ l^. 



C> 



' N ' ^^^ 



,^^ -^C^. 






"-^^ ^ 



'/- * 3 N 






^. 



', O 









-^^ 









."V "^ 






%^ -^ -' * <. 



^Ct^"^^^ ^0 






r> 



^ 



"'" -^^ s^\^r^\ 



y 'KS-o- it <n't 



/ -"^^ 






\ 







.0^ 



\ ^S ^ ^ 









b 0^ 



«=, 



^ 






<^ 






\- 



■\ 



^ ^-fj 



fcs 



* ^ .. « ^ ,v 



-^^ 



V^ 



H -7- . 






o « ^ ""-^^ ' N ^ \^ 









'^^ -^^^ 



>' 



\.' <^ ^ * « ^ 



^., .^' 



c. /■ 



■^ 







^ 



:.>•' ^ 
























^^.#' ,^ 






9 I A 




'i¥I sf 












:# 



.0^ c » '- •■ 



<" 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 



G » ~?^^f . ^ '''^_. Treatment Date: June 2005 






^^ 







PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 














N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 



^:<m^,^ a 



^ ' ' ^. 



^0■ 



-6 



, . , /'°<^ * r. ^ ^\^^ 



" ' '~ 0^ s^ ^' ^.v '^ 



